Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

SKILLED MEN (TEMPORARY RELEASE).

Mr. Purbrick: asked the Secretary of State for War how many men, skilled in the work of industries in the production of war material, have been released temporarily from the Army for such work during the months of May, June, July and August and up to date in September, respectively; and how many more are available temporarily?

The Secretary of State for War (Captain Margesson): As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

I regret that figures of the number of skilled men released for the production of war materials are not available, but the total number of men temporarily released from the Army for work of national importance during the months in question was as follows:

May
…
789


June
…
778


July
…
649


August
…
630


September
…
785


Total
…
3,631

In addition, 4,652 indefinite releases were sanctioned during this period.

As regards the second part of the Question, applications for release must be supported by the Government Department concerned and by the Ministry of Labour and National Service. It is not possible to anticipate future releases, which will depend on the demands of industry and the military situation.

PALESTINIANS (GREECE AND CRETE).

Mr. Wedgwood: asked the Secretary of State for War how many of the 1,541 Palestinians, presumed prisoners of war, were left in Greece unsurrendered; whether they were left without arms to defend themselves; whether British officers were in command, if so, did they stop with their men; and what proportion of the Palestinians left in Greece and Crete were Jews and Arabs, respectively?

Captain Margesson: I am ascertaining the facts from the Middle East, and will communicate with my right hon. Friend as soon as possible. I can only say at this stage that I regret that my right hon. Friend has seen fit to give publicity to suggestions which I am confident will prove to be entirely without foundation.

Mr. Wedgwood: May I ask my right hon. and gallant Friend why he could not tell me that when I asked him privately?

SOLDIER'S DEATH.

Mr. Silverman: asked the Secretary of State for War in what circumstances 3386493 Private J. Grogan met his death; whether he died while under detention by military police; whether his death was the result of violence committed upon him by the guards responsible for his safety; whether his relatives were represented, or had the opportunity to be represented, at the subsequent inquest; and whether he will now order a general inquiry into all the circumstances?

Captain Margesson: The finding of the coroner's court was that the soldier in question died by justifiable homicide as a result of injuries received from military policemen whilst attempting to escape from custody. So far as I am aware the relatives were not represented at the inquest, but my hon. Friend will appreciate that the arrangements for an inquest are not a matter for the military authorities. The most searching inquiries have been instituted by the military authorities and the civil police into the circumstances of this case, and, while I have the greatest sympathy with the soldier's relatives, there is no reason to suppose that further inquiries would bring any new facts to light.

Mr. Silverman: Is the right, hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that 11 soldiers stationed at this point wrote to the parents of the dead soldier, protesting, and can


he say whether at any of the investigations the evidence of these 11 soldiers was taken?

Captain Margesson: I understand that these II soldiers afterwards denied that they had understood what they had signed

Mr. Silverman: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the inquest took place within less than 24 hours of the death, and that the parents could not possibly have had any opportunity of being represented at the inquiry?

Captain Margesson: As I said in my answer, I think my hon. Friend will appreciate that the arrangements for inquests are not a matter for the military authorities.

Mr. Silverman: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman agree that in any case, where a person has died as the result of the action of his guardians, it is in the public interest, and as much in the interests of the Army as anyone else, that there should be the fullest and most public inquiry possible?

Captain Margesson: I agree, and I have every confidence also in the coroner.

Mr. Silverman: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I propose to raise the matter again.

PLACES OUT OF BOUNDS.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Secretary of State for War what is the position of all ranks when a particular place is put out of bounds; does it apply to all; and, if not, who are those to whom the ban does not cover?

Captain Margesson: It is open to a commander to impose restrictions of this kind on all or any ranks under his command, and exceptions may be made at his discretion. If my hon. Friend has in mind a particular case in which an instruction of this nature appears to have worked unfairly, I shall be glad to look into it.

Mr. Tinker: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that the information that I have is that the ranks are put out of bounds and the officers are not put out of bounds, and that this is causing discontent between the parties?

Captain Margesson: Perhaps my hon. Friend will let me have particulars.

Mr. Bellenger: Can my right hon. and gallant Friend say whether a commander is to be of any lower rank than a general officer?

Captain Margesson: I understand it is the commander of the unit.

PAY AND ALLOWANCES.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that in order to make the recently announced increase in the allowances paid to married officers in the Army under the age of 30, the rates to be paid in the future to married officers, as and when they reach the age of 30, are to be reduced, and in view of the fact that this constituted, in effect, a reduction in the allowances to be paid to officers over 30 years of age as compared to the rates they now enjoy, he will reconsider the whole question of pay and allowances, not only to the officers, but also to the men in the ranks of the Army, having regard to the large rewards now paid to those engaged in industrial employment, and the recently announced increase in bonuses to be paid to Civil servants?

Captain Margesson: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the latter part of the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 30th September to the hon. Member for London University (Sir E. Graham-Little). I am unable to accept my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion that the recent revision of family lodging allowance rates for married officers involves a decrease in the rates for all officers over 30 or that officers already serving will have their allowances reduced.

Sir A. Southby: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that not only in the Services but among the public there is growing dissatisfaction at the scurvy treatment meted out to officers and men and to their wives and dependants by the Treasury?

Captain Margesson: No doubt my hon. and gallant Friend saw the Reply which the Prime Minister gave the other day on the subject, in which he said:
My colleagues and I are examining suggestions that the families of other ranks


are in certain cases experiencing hardship and difficulty in meeting their obligations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th September, 1941; col. 501, Vol. 374.]

Sir A. Southby: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that, while this examination is taking place—it could have taken place some time ago—the dependants of the officers and men are suffering?

DEPENDANTS' ALLOWANCES.

Mr. Martin: asked the Secretary of State for War whether in view of the considerable hardship now often suffered by wives of soldiers who are expectant mothers, he will take steps to see that they receive grants sufficient for their needs from Army funds prior to the birth of their child?

Captain Margesson: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) on 5th August.

Major Procter: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a widow with a son in the Army who goes to work either to help the State or to earn an adequate livelihood suffers the deprivation of her dependant's allowance if she earns more than 14s. a week; whether, in view of the fact that the normal soldier's allotment plus her allowance is inadequate to meet her needs, he will, as in the case of wives of soldiers, remodel the existing practice and abstain from penalising her industry in the way mentioned?

Captain Margesson: The dependants' allowance scheme is designed to meet cases where hardship would be caused to dependants other than wives or children as the result of a man joining the Colours. It would therefore be inconsistent with the purpose of the scheme to grant dependants' allowance without reference to the dependant's income from other sources. It is, however, by no means true that a woman with no other source of income would be deprived of her allowance if she herself earned more than 14s. a week, and if my hon. and gallant Friend will Jet me have details of any particular case he has in mind, I shall be glad to look into it.

Major Procter: Is it not a fact that, if a widow earns more than 14s. a week, she has to inform the paymaster and her allowance is at once withdrawn?

Captain Margesson: That is not the fact, and it is for that reason that I said that if my hon. Friend had a particular case, I would be glad to look into it.

RUSSIAN ARMY (BRITISH CO-OPERATION).

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is arranging with our Russian Allies that key British officers may have the opportunity of personal participation in the war on the Russian front in order that they may study at first hand German tactics and the best ways of defeating and countering them?

Captain Margesson: The best method of securing the maximum co-operation between the Russian and British Armies is being carefully examined in consultation with our Russian allies, and my hon. Friend's proposal will certainly be borne in mind. As has already been announced, General Mason-Macfarlane, the head of our military mission in Moscow, has himself visited the Russian front and obtained first-hand knowledge of the fighting there.

CIGARETTES.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: asked the Secretary of State for War whether there is a fixed ration of cigarettes per week that soldiers can receive from their canteens; and, if so, how many the ration is?

Captain Margesson: There is no fixed ration of cigarettes that soldiers may receive from their canteens.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: In view of the very meagre rations that are at present issued at most canteens, should there not be some uniformity in all canteens of the number of cigarettes that the soldiers receive?

Captain Margesson: I think that that would be very difficult to administer, especially at this time.

ARRESTED OFFICERS (PAY).

Captain Cunningham-Reid: asked the Secretary of State for War whether it is the practice on the arrest of a Regular regimental officer to suspend the issue to him of his pay pending his court-martial?

Captain Margesson: The pay warrant provides that, when a Regular regimental officer is under arrest, his pay shall be issued in arrear instead of monthly in advance. The normal practice in such cases is for pay to be issued monthly in


arrear, but in cases of hardship issue may be made at more frequent intervals.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: Is it not rather unfair that in certain circumstances these funds that may be urgently required by an officer for his defence are withheld until he has proved himself not guilty?

Captain Margesson: I think that it works out fairly, as my hon. and gallant Friend knows.

CANTEENS (WOMEN'S LAND ARMY).

Captain Cunningham-Reid: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will reconsider his decision that members of the Women's Land Army shall not be allowed to obtain food at Auxiliary Territorial Service canteens, in view of the fact that considerable hardship is caused by this prohibition to land girls, who often have to take long cross-country journeys, sometimes late at night, and are unable to get anything to eat or drink on the way?

Captain Margesson: I assume that my hon. and gallant Friend is referring to the canteens for the Services which are operated by various philanthropic organisations. I am in touch with these organisations on the question of allowing members of the Land Army to use their canteens and hope to be in a position to make a statement shortly.

LORRY ACCIDENT, KILMARNOCK.

Mr. McKinlay: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Miss Susan Train, 12, Townholm, Kilmarnock, was knocked through the parapet of a bridge on the 17th of July last by a service lorry driven by a corporal of the Army Service Corps, receiving injuries from which she died the next day; that to date her parents have not even received an expression of regret for the occurrence; and will he consider the question of the War Office paying at least the funeral expenses?

Captain Margesson: The necessary investigations into this case have only just been completed, and a representative of Scottish Command is having an interview with Miss Train's parents this week, at which the whole matter will be discussed.

EQUIPMENT (POLISHING AND CLEANING).

Sir Robert Young: asked the Secretary of State for War whether an order was issued saying that brasses on equipment were not to be polished; whether this order was in any way qualified in such a manner as to give officers in command power to ignore the order; and will he say whether equipment, including respirator case, as part of the order, should, or should not, be blenched?

Captain Margesson: Instructions were issued in November, 1940, that all webbing equipment brasses and other brass parts of arms and equipment used or worn, or likely to be used or worn, by troops during active service operations should be left unpolished. This order has not been qualified in any way and was, in fact, reaffirmed in July last. As regards the last part of the Question, existing instructions provide that the webbing parts of equipment including the respirator haversack should be cleaned and blancoed in order to preserve the qualities of the material.

Sir R. Young: Is not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that there is much dissatisfaction because brasses are cleaned in one unit and not in another, especially around Edinburgh, where it is being insisted upon by commanding officers?

Captain Margesson: I was not aware that there was great dissatisfaction on this point. As I said, this order was reaffirmed as lately as July last.

Mr. Bellenger: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman look into the question of various colours and expense, according to the taste of the individual commanding officer?

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: Is it not true that some units like to be slovenly and that some like to be smart?

EAST AFRICAN COMMAND (ERITREA).

Mr. Silverman: asked the Secretary of State for War for what reasons Eritrea has been moved from the jurisdiction of the Middle East High Command; who is now responsible for the administration and control of that area; and what is now the status of the Fascist organisations and authorities formerly exercising authority there?

Captain Margesson: It is intended that Eritrea shall form part of the new East African Command, which has been created in order to relieve the Commander-in-Chief, Middle East, of administrative work and to free him for operational responsibilities in the more active theatres of war. This transfer will take place by arrangement between the two Commands at a suitable date. I am not clear what organisations are referred to in the last part of the Question, but there is, of course, no question of any part of the Italian civil administration continuing to exercise authority.

TRANSFERENCE TO OTHER SERVICES.

Sir John Mellor: asked the Secretary of State for War what facilities are given to soldiers who so desire and who are suitable, to transfer to the Navy or to the Air Force?

Captain Margesson: The facilities for transfer from the Army to the Royal Air Force have been brought to the notice of all ranks in recent instructions. In general, applications may be submitted by officers up to and including the rank of substantive or war substantive lieutenant and by other ranks up to and including the rank of serjeant, but it has been necessary to except certain categories of personnel of which I will send my hon. Friend particulars. Applications for service in the Royal Navy are considered only if the applicant has sea qualifications of an exceptional nature.

FIRST AID NURSING YEOMANRY.

Major Cazalet: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is. aware that the recruiting office of the First Aid Nursing Yeomanry rejects British citizens born of American mothers; and whether this discrimination has his approval?

Captain Margesson: The First Aid Nursing Yeomanry is not administered by the War Office, and I am afraid that I cannot accept responsibility for the restrictions which a private organisation of this kind sees fit to impose on its members.

Major Cazalet: In view of the close association between the A.T.S. and the F.A.N.Y.s, will my right hon. and gallant Friend draw the attention of this organisation to this rather lamentable fact?

Captain Margesson: I should be both to interfere with a private organisation, but possibly the publicity that the question has received to-day will come to their attention.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

CROPS, MILNGAVIE TOWN COUNCIL.

Mr. McKinlay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the financial result of the planting and disposal of crops by the Milngavie Town Council on lands belonging to the burgh?

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): I am informed that in the year ending 15th May last the total expenditure of the town council on the cultivation of crops on land belonging to the burgh amounted to £1,419 and receipts from the sale of crops totalled £1,642. This expenditure, however, in-cluded the cost of seeds and ploughing for this year's crop, and if allowance is made for these factors, it is estimated by the council that the profit on last year's crop would amount to approximately £450.

SALE OF WHISKY, GLASGOW.

Mr. McKinlay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what complaints he has received from Glasgow on the widespread sale of alleged Irish whisky; and will be take steps to ascertain the origin of the said whisky so that the consuming public may be protected?

Mr. Johnston: I have received no such complaints. If my hon. Friend can send me evidence that whisky is being sold under a false designation, I shall be glad to communicate that evidence to the appropriate authorities.

Mr. McKinlay: I must apologise; I am no judge. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the allegation is that this is imported American whisky and is redesignated in Ireland before it arrives here? Will he have some inquiries made?

Mr. Johnston: All I can say is that I have made inquiries of the Scottish Home Department, the town clerk's office, the police and the Crown Office, and none of them has any information.

Mr. Walker: Is it not a fact that water is often sold for whisky?

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

COLLIERY CANTEENS AND BRITISH RESTAURANTS.

Mr. Gordon Macdonald: asked the Secretary for Mines the number of food canteens at the collieries in Lancashire and Cheshire; and what action he is taking to bring about a rapid increase in the number?

The Secretary for Mines (Mr. David Grenfell): Thirty-two collieries have canteens, of which at least seven have been registered by the Ministry of Food for supplementary supplies of rationed foods. The Lancashire District Miners' Welfare Committee have decided in favour of the establishment of central kitchens to supply food to collieries and three of these —to supply 42 collieries—are in process of establishment and will soon be at work.

Mr. Macdonald: Will not my hon. Friend take some action to increase the supply of these canteens?

Mr. Grenfell: My hon. Friend must know that there is no delay at all. This matter is under the care of the Miners' Welfare Commission, upon which the Miners' Federation and the mineowners have representatives. There are also three independent representatives and an independent chairman— Member of this House. They are pushing on; they have a programme costing £1,500,000 which will cover the whole industry.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Secretary for Mines the number of canteens and British Restaurants, respectively, and the proportion of workers supplied, now established in the mining centres of Northumberland and Durham, respectively; and what is the anticipated numbers by the end of the year?

Mr. Grenfell: Forty-two British Restaurants serving 7,700 meals daily have been established in 20 towns and villages in the mining areas of Northumberland and Durham. As these are open to the public generally it is not possible to say how many workers are actually served by them. There is steady development in the opening of further centres and it is anticipated that at least another 20 centres, that is 62 in all, will be opened by the end of the year. Fourteen canteens have been established at collieries in Northumberland, and 37

at collieries in Durham providing food for 40 and 48 per cent. of the workers employed at collieries in those districts respectively. Others are in preparation at 29 and 49 collieries providing for 42 and 35 per cent. of the workers respectively, and should be established by the end of the year.

Mr. Adams: Will my hon. Friend expedite the provision of these canteens?

Mr. Grenfell: There is no delay. There are nearly 2,000 pits in production, and something is being done and will be done this year for all of them.

Mr. Shinwell: Why does my hon. Friend say there is no delay in providing these canteens when in the whole of Durham and Northumberland not 10 per cent. of the miners are supplied with these canteens, in spite of the fact that this matter has been before him for more than 12 months?

Mr. Grenfell: I do not think I was at all backward. We all suggested more rations for miners in their homes. That is how it began, and then we switched over to the improvisation of arrangements at pits. There has been no delay. More than 10 per cent. of the miners have been provided for in these counties.

Mr. Shinwell: As to the statement about more than 10 per cent. being provided for, I challenge my hon. Friend to demonstrate that—

Mr. Speaker: Order!

Mr. Shinwell: In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of my hon. Friend's reply, I give notice that I intend to raise this matter again at a suitable opportunity.

MINE ACCIDENTS (RECOGNITION OF GALLANTRY).

Mr. Tinker: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that there is a feeling of apprehension in the minds of the mine workers that acts of gallantry and heroism in recent underground accidents in mines are not fully reported to his Department, and that many who are deserving of recognition have been overlooked; and will he give personal attention to this matter, to show there is full recognition to both officials and workmen who help in the rescue operations?

Mr. Grenfell: The Inspectors of Mines have a standing instruction to send me a full and confidential report whenever they hear of any act of outstanding gallantry in saving or attempting to save life in mines and quarries, and in all cases in which a coroner makes a recommendation for bravery. These reports include statements taken from all the persons concerned in the rescue operations and all persons who are in any way able to throw light upon them. All such reports and evidence are most carefully examined in my Department with a view to appropriate recognition being recommended or accorded, and I personally see and consider all cases that merit serious consideration. I think the hon. Member may be assured that, through the various channels I have mentioned, all such exceptional and outstanding cases are brought to my notice, and receive the full consideration they deserve.

Mr. Tinker: Will my hon. Friend try to get a little more information from the trade union side, because we are inclined to think that the inspectors do not get the whole facts which do justice to the workmen?

Mr. Grenfell: We do not exclude information from any source. The men who are active in pit rescue work are members of the Federation, and they or their representatives are entitled to speak on their behalf. I give an invitation to any Member of the House from any mining area to come and see me, and I will show him the papers before any steps are taken.

Mr. G. Macdonald: Is my hon. Friend aware that recently officials of a colliery were recommended for awards and that workmen who took quite as much part in the rescue work were not recommended?

Mr. Grenfell: If my hon. Friend has any particular cases in mind, I shall be glad to have them. I will give him access to all the papers and go through the cases with him.

SUPPLIES, COTTON INDUSTRY.

Mr. Hammersley: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that nucleus cotton spinning companies in Lancashire engaged on urgent Government work have been stopped owing to inadequate and unsuitable supplies of coal; and what steps he is taking to prevent this interference with the national war effort?

Mr. Grenfell: Under the programme of coal supplies for the cotton industry recently organised by the Department's Regional Officers and the Cotton Control Board, certain re-arrangements of supply were necessary in the general interest. In a few cases these changes led to complaints that the coal supplied under the programme was unsuitable. All these cases are being investigated by technical experts, and it is hoped that any difficulties that have been experienced will speedily be overcome.

Mr. Hammersley: Is the Minister aware that in some cases the coal allocated is so bad that it puts out the fires and that in consequence the mill is stopped and the operatives have to be sent home, and will he look into this matter, in view of the fact that it is stopping urgent national work?

Mr. Grenfell: It is because of the complaints that the steps indicated in my reply have been taken. There is good coal and bad coal; it is our intention to supply suitable coal, and it is for that reason that this technical advice has been given.

Mr. Hammersley: Is the Minister aware that these matters have been brought to the attention of the Department concerned, that in spite of representations by everybody in the industry the coal is unsuitable, and that, in fact, the technical officers have not made the change in allocation which is necessary? Is it not rather scandalous that mills should be stopped because of this fact?

Mr. Grenfell: I am not quite sure that it is possible to arrange everything without there being a risk of an occasional stoppage owing to unsuitable or insufficient coal. I can assure the hon. Member that we are guilty of no lack of attention. The problem is one of greater, production, and within our supplies we are doing everything we can to see that coal of a satisfactory nature is sent to all classes of consumers. We are paying attention to this matter, and I am sure that the hon. Member will be satisfied.

Oral Answers to Questions — PETROL RATIONING.

HIRED MOTOE CARS.

Major Lyons: asked the Secretary for Petroleum what steps he has taken to check and control the utilisation of petrol


for undisclosed or unnecessary journeys through the system of drive-yourself hiring of motor-cars with petrol supplied?

The Secretary for Petroleum (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): Following consultation with the Government Departments concerned, as well as with the associations representative of the trade, I have had a suitable Order prepared which I expect to issue shortly.

Major Lyons: Arising out of the fact that these consultations are taking place, and that this abuse has gone on for a long time, is it not the case that now, in the third year of the war, nothing has been done but that an Order is under consideration?

Mr. Lloyd: I gave a promise to deal with this matter, and these consultations have been going forward, but in this matter, as I have explained before, speed in the remedying of small abuses is less important than care to see that important public facilities are not impaired.

Major Lyons: Does my hon. Friend realise that this abuse is widespread throughout the country? Why cannot something be done immediately without further consideration being given to the matter?

SOUTHAMPTON CORPORATION.

Dr. Russell Thomas: asked the Secretary for Petroleum whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction caused by the letter of the Divisional Petroleum Officer, at Reading, refusing to grant a small additional petrol supply to the Southampton Corporation in connection with a reconstruction scheme which it had been advised to undertake by the Minister of Reconstruction with the approval of the Minister of Health; and whether he intends to take steps to prevent, in future, the recurrence of this kind of action by this officer?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir; and I much regret that a mistake was made in the Divisional Petroleum Office. Instructions have been issued which should prevent its recurrence.

Dr. Russell Thomas: Does not my hon. Friend realise that letters written by the Divisional Petroleum Officer at Reading in reply to the very explanatory letters of the Town Clerk of Southampton, in reference to work undertaken by the Southampton Corporation on the advice

of the Ministry of Reconstruction and with the approval of the Ministry of Health, that these letters were the cause of delay on the one hand, and were curt, arrogant and dictatorial on the other, and more in accord with other manners and usages than with the principles we, in this House, constantly proclaim we are fighting for?

Oral Answers to Questions — BROADCASTING.

SILENT MINUTE OBSERVANCE (AUSTRALIA).

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he can inform the House on what date the Government of Australia officially inaugurated the Big Ben silent minute observance?

The Under-Secretary of Stale for the Colonies (Mr. George Hall): I have been asked to reply. I am informed that the Australian Broadcasting Commission has, since 29th September, 1941, observed on all its stations a daily pause for private prayer in the minute preceding noon.

Sir W. Smithers: Is the Minister aware of the widespread nature of this observance, and will he take steps to make it still more widely known?

Mr. Hall: I hope my Reply to the hon. Member's Question will do that.

PARLIAMENTARY SPEECHES.

Mr. Horabin (for Mr. Mander): asked the Minister of Information, on what occasions, and to what extent, his department controls or intervenes in the presentation of speeches made, in this House, as reported by the British Broadcasting Corporation?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Information (Mr. Thurtle): The B.B.C. broadcasts of Parliamentary proceedings are taken from the agency reports, and the inevitable and severe measure of compression involved is carried out by the news staff of the B.B.C, who receive advice and information from officers in close daily contact with my Ministry. The aim of these reports is to present a fair and objective summary.

Sir Percy Harris: Are we to understand that the Ministry of Information decide whose speeches should be cut down and whose should be reported, or is that left to the discretion of the B.B.C?

Mr. Thurtle: In practice the Ministry hardly ever interfere with these reports. Our one aim is to give a fair and objective summary, and we have every confidence in the responsible B.B.C. officials who are carrying out this work.

Sir P. Harris: What does my hon. Friend mean by "hardly ever"? Does he suggest that if the Ministry of Information dislike some particular Member, they can expurgate his speeches?

Mr. Thurtle: It is only in abnormal and exceptional circumstances that they interfere at all.

Earl Winterton: Is it not unprecedented for a Government Department to attempt to interfere with the dissemination of news concerning the proceedings of this House? Is there any precedent for it, and do they propose to introduce this novel principle?

Mr. Thurtle: I can only repeat that it is only in very exceptional and abnormal circumstances that there is any interference.

Mr. Shinwell: Can we have some cases of the exceptional circumstances? To whom do they refer, to Members on that side or to Members on this side? Can we have an answer, as it is an important question?

Mr. Thurtle: I suggest to my hon. Friend that if he has any specific report in mind which he considers was unfair, he might put down a Question.

Mr. Shinwell: Does not my hon. Friend realise that it does not lay with me to indicate a specific case? He has himself referred to exceptional circumstances. What are they?

Mr. McGovern: Could not the Members who speak in a Debate set up a committee to indicate what parts of their speeches should be reported?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

SMALL TRADERS.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, with a view to assisting small shopkeepers throughout the country, he will take steps to introduce regulations or legislation to prevent shops and stores throughout the country selling articles during the war period that they had not sold previous to

the outbreak of the war, in view of the fact that many of the stores who had not previously sold anything above 6d. now display on their counters many goods, and commodities which they had not previously had on sale?

The President of the Board of Trade (Sir Andrew Duncan): I understand that the Retail Trade Committee, appointed by my predecessor, have this problem under active consideration.

Mr. De la Bère: Does not my right hon. Friend realise that it is no longer a question that something should be done to protect the small retail shopkeeper, but that something must be done to see that his livelihood and the whole of his future are not threatened?

Sir A. Duncan: What must be done is under active consideration at the present time.

Major Lyons: Has this Committee had any sittings?

Sir A. Duncan: Very frequent sittings.

CONCENTRATION OF INDUSTRY.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the schemes which are being formulated for rationalisation of industry throughout the country, the Government will take adequate steps to ensure the prevention of middle-class unemployment before universal reconstruction absorbs displacements?

Sir A. Duncan: The policy of concentration has been applied to a number of industries to meet the circumstances created by the war and is not designed to lead to permanent changes in the industrial structure. The policy is being operated in close co-operation with the Minister of Labour, who is taking the necessary measures to provide for the re-absorption into employment of all types of displaced workers, including middle-class workers.

Mr. De la Bère: Does my right hon. Friend realise that compensation is no solution for these problems?

Sir A. Duncan: Yes, I do.

Mr. De la Bère: Does my right hon. Friend realise further that there is not really sufficient support for the middle classes from hon. Members belonging to all parties in this House?

Mr. Shinwell: If a shopkeeper is thrown out of business through no fault of his own and because of some act on the part of the Government, why should not he be compensated for it?

Sir A. Duncan: This question has no relevance to shopkeepers.

Mr. Shinwell: Has it not relevance to the concentration of industry and the displacement of shopkeepers?

CLOTHES RATIONING.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that many members of the public, whose clothing coupons have been lost or destroyed, are suffering hardship through their inability to obtain clothing and footwear; and whether he is now able to state when declaration forms for replacement will be ready?

Sir A. Duncan: Declaration forms enabling the public to obtain replacement of lost clothing coupons may now be obtained at all money-order post offices, local W.V.S. centres and Citizens' Advice Bureaux. These forms should be completed in the presence pf a justice of the peace and forwarded to the appropriate Area Office of the Board of Trade, of which the address will be found on the back of the form.

COINAGE (DESIGN).

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will confer with the appropriate authorities at the Royal Mint with a view to the issue of pennies and halfpennies bearing the emblem of the Spitfire and Hurricane, as a tribute to the Royal Air Force?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): My hon. Friend's suggestion has been considered, but owing to the need to economise labour and material it will not be desirable to make any changes in the design of our coinage under present circumstances.

Mr. De la Bère: Would it not be appropriate to have some memorial to the gallantry and heroism of the Royal Air Force and perpetuate that for all time by placing an emblem on our coinage?

Sir K. Wood: I am afraid there would be no logical stopping ground to such suggestions.

Mr. De la Bère: Then my right hon. Friend does not entirely turn down the idea?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

WAR DAMAGE CLAIMS.

Mr. Cecil Wilson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, in spite of repeated assurances that have been given by the Government in respect of the early payment of cost-of-works compensation under the War Damage Act, many house owners are unable to have their repairs undertaken by builders owing to the apparent persistence of the impression that such compensation will only be paid after the war; and will he consider what further steps can be taken towards informing everyone concerned of the correct position with a view to encouraging the prompt carrying out of necessary repairs?

Sir K. Wood: I am not aware that the position is as stated. The War Damage Commission inform me that they are in touch with organisations representing building trade employers and building societies and are satisfied that the conditions of payment generally are well understood, particularly now that cost-of-works payments are being made in considerable numbers. The Commission make available an explanatory pamphlet to everyone who has suffered war damage, and this pamphlet states that cost-of-works payments will be made after the completion of the work as soon as the Commission has satisfied itself that the cost of the work is reasonable. The Commission will be glad to send a copy to anyone desiring an authoritative statement on the position.

Mr. Bellenger: Is it necessary to get the permission of the War Damage Commission before such works are undertaken, or can the applicant get the work done and then send in a bill?

Sir K. Wood: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that Question on the Order Paper.

Major Milner: As there is a good deal of dissatisfaction about delay in making payments in these cases, could not payments be expedited?

Sir K. Wood: I will communicate the hon. and gallant Member's Question to


the Chairman. A very large number of payments have been made.

Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of these claims have been in for over a year and have not been paid? If he wants to get a good name for the Government paying their debts, will he look into this matter?

Sir K. Wood: I think the Government have a very good name in that respect.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that hardship is caused to many old age pensioners, who own the house they live in, being called upon to pay the war damage to property contribution; and will he consider whether some alleviation can be made to this class of case?

Sir K. Wood: I would refer my hon. Friend to the replies given to similar Questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Abertillery (Mr. Daggar) on 5th August, and by my hon. Friend the Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) on 7th August.

Mr. Tinker: Would my right hon. Friend mind telling we what was in those replies?

Sir K. Wood: Perhaps my hon. Friend will look at them.

INCOME TAX AND SURTAX (BRITISH SUBJECTS ABROAD).

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will given an assurance that British subjects who have gone abroad will, by their residence abroad, not be given exemption from all or any part of the Income Tax and Surtax for which they would have been liable if they had continued to reside in this country, or that such exemption will be given only to members of the Armed Forces serving outwith the country; and whether he will make such changes as will make a full contribution to the nation's effort a condition of the retention of British nationality?

Sir K. Wood: My hon. friend is no doubt aware that persons not resident in the United Kingdom are liable to United Kingdom Income Tax and Surtax on all income arising in the United Kingdom, except income from certain British Government securities which were issued

with the condition that the interest should be exempt from tax if the securities were in the beneficial ownership of persons not ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom. The question of extending the scope of the tax so as to apply to income arising to non-residents from foreign sources in such cases as those to which my hon. friend refers, has been raised on more than one occasion in recent months and has received my careful attention, but, as I have previously indicated, I cannot see my way to propose legislation to that end.

Mr. Woodburn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable feeling that certain people have gone abroad not only to be safe from the dangers which people who reside here have to face, but also to avoid the payment of full taxation for which they would be liable if they lived in this country?

Sir K. Wood: I have no evidence to that effect.

ARMED FORCES (PAY AND ALLOWANCES).

Lieut.-Colonel: Sir Thomas Moore asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how he reconciles his refusal to increase the pay and/or allowances to the Fighting Services with his decision to grant a bonus to the Civil Service?

Sir K. Wood: I would refer my hon. Friend to the latter part of my reply to the Question asked on 30th September by my hon. Friend the Member for London University (Sir E. Graham-Little).

Sir T. Moore: Would my right hon. Friend mind telling me what was contained in the latter part of that reply?

Sir K. Wood: I will send my hon. and gallant Friend a copy.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

PREMISES (REQUISITIONING).

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will authorise the spending Departments, when requisitioning premises, to pay to the occupier the amount of any loss occasioned by a sale of his stock, for the purpose of giving vacant possession in compliance with an Order, unless the Department has previously offered to the occupier suitable storage space on reasonable terms?

Sir K. Wood: It is the practice of Departments, under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Compensation (Defence) Act, to pay the expenses of removal and of storage, and this should serve in most cases to obviate the risk of loss of the kind to which my hon. Friend refers. If immediate sale were necessary the expenses of the sale could be claimed under the same Section as an alternative to those of storage.

Sir J. Mellor: May I point out to my right hon. Friend that my Question refers to loss on a sale and not to expenses in connection with a sale? I asked him whether the Department could be authorised to pay the loss on a sale—that is to say, the difference between the amount realised and the valuation.

Sir K. Wood: No, Sir. I should not be able to do that.

Mr. Shinwell: If someone loses as a result of requisitioning and because of a forced sale of stocks, is there any reason why the Government should not come to that person's assistance?

Sir K. Wood: There are many losses of that kind which have arisen as a result of the war which people, unfortunately, have to pay.

Mr. Shinwell: Why not make an attempt to establish equity? Why should some have to bear these losses and others not?

Sir K. Wood: That, unfortunately, is the position.

Sir J. Mellor: Has my right hon. Friend considered the comments on hardships caused in these cases which are contained in the report of Mr. John Morris, published recently in a White Paper? Is my right hon. Friend going to do anything to implement the recommendations of Mr. John Morris?

Sir K. Wood: I have already given a reply to the House and stated that I propose to implement the recommendations.

Sir A. Southby: Has my right hon. Friend considered the many questions of hardship which have been brought to his notice by his right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal?

Sir K. Wood: No cases of hardship have been brought to my notice by my right hon. Friend.

Sir A. Southby: Then will my right hon. Friend make inquiries from the Lord Privy Seal?

Sir K. Wood: I am sorry that I did my right hon. Friend an injustice. He brought a number of cases to my notice which I referred to Mr. Morris and which he has dealt with.

Sir A. Southby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of these cases have not yet been dealt with?

Sir K. Wood: As I have said, I am going to adopt the recommendations of Mr. Morris.

Mr. G. Macdonald: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings whether he is satisfied that the buildings and hotels allocated to the staffs of the various Ministries, in different parts of the country, are fully utilised; and whether a number of these buildings would be suitable for hospital accommodation in case of an emergency?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings (Mr. Hicks): Yes, Sir. We endeavour to make the maximum use of the buildings in our charge. The total number of premises held by the Ministry for the staffs of other Departments exceeds 20,000, and the hon. Member will appreciate that, owing to new services and the expansion of staffs, together with the need for reserve accommodation, it is inevitable that a certain number of premises must always be either temporarily vacant or in process of re-allocation. In regard to the second part of the Question, hospital accommodation for emergency needs is continually under review by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health and a number of buildings have been earmarked for this purpose.

Mr. Macdonald: Is my hon. Friend aware that in a coastal town in the North-West it is thought that the accommodation taken over is far too large for the needs, and is he also aware that in that town the Secretariat of the Air Force are doing their work in basements?

Mr. Hicks: I am aware of the criticisms.

MILITARY SERVICE.

Sir T. Moore: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many men under 30 years of age are now employed in the Civil Service; and how many civil servants under 30 years of age are serving with the Fighting Forces?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): I regret that it would not be possible, without a great deal of investigation, to give an accurate reply to the points raised by my hon. and gallant Friend. There is no readily accessible information concerning civil servants under 30 who are reserved under their occupational classification, e.g., chemists, surveyors, at the same age as in outside industry. There were, however, on 1st September, 1941, 6,400 civil servants under 30 in the administrative, executive, clerical and analogous grades, and in professional and technical grades not specifically reserved at a lower age. Of these some 1,100 were awaiting call up. In addition 2,601 were deferred and 1,759 were reserved and the position of these is being examined by the Kennet Committee. On 1st July there were 58,717 non-industrial civil servants serving with the Forces; but it is not possible to say how many of these are under 30.

Sir T. Moore: In view of the known anxiety of these young civil servants to be released from their present occupation so that they can join the Fighting Forces, and in view of the fact that most of their work is of a clerical nature, would it not be possible to satisfy their desire by replacing them with women?

Captain Crookshank: My hon. and gallant Friend must not overlook the fact that we have had a committee, under Lord Kennet, sitting on this matter, and that it has made certain recommendations which have been adopted.

Mr. Lawson: What is the difference between awaiting calling up, deferment and reservation? Is there any difference?

Captain Crookshank: Oh, yes, there must be.

Sir Herbert Williams: Has my right hon. and gallant Friend considered the possibility of introducing more normal methods of administration in Government Departments so that about half their present staffs can run them?

Sir Percy Hurd: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what effect has been given to the recommendations of the Kennet Committee for the combing out of men and women from the Departments for war service?

Captain Crookshank: I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply to his Question

of 9th September. Instructions have been issued to Departments to apply for the retention of the minimum numbers of essential staff on the lines indicated in the Interim Report of Lord Kennet's Committee, and the operative date for the. new ages of reservation will be 15th December. I should like the opportunity of adding that Lord Kennet and his colleagues have consented to act as the Advisory Committee on the deferment of the calling up of civil servants. His Majesty's Government are most grateful to them for undertaking these further duties.

Sir P. Hurd: Did not my right hon. and gallant Friend inform the House of Commons last summer that the Government regarded these matters as matters of urgency, and does he not think that that idea of urgency might be used in carrying out the recommendations of the Kennet Committee?

Captain Crookshank: It was because of the urgency of the matter that the Kennet Committee was set up and made recommendations, which we have accepted and are carrying out.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

PROSECUTIONS.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he can give any information in connection with the charge made against John Linday, Cyril Manuell and Sydney Cyril Zeitlin accused of asking £1,876 for tinned fruit worth £667, who were charged at Bow Street Police Court on Friday, 19th September; and whether they were charged also with conspiracy?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Major Lloyd George): As the case to which my hon. Friend refers is sub judice, it would not. be desirable for me to give at present the particulars asked for. I will, however, communicate with him in due course.

SHOPPING QUEUES.

Mr. G. Macdonald: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that queueing for food, and other essentials, in many parts of the country is causing much dissatisfaction, especially amongst the married women workers engaged on war


work; and whether he will take action to ensure a fair share of the goods available to those who are unable to stand in queues?

Major Lloyd George: I mentioned in the course of the Debate on 2nd October that a new scheme for the rationing of certain unrationed foodstuffs will be introduced in the middle of November. This scheme, when in operation, will assist in providing a fair share of the foods concerned to those who are unable to stand in queues, and in the meantime the local officers of the Ministry of Food and Ministry of Labour have been instructed to do what is possible in consultation with local organisations to bring about an improvement in shopping conditions.

ROYAL AIR FORCE (FLYING BADGES).

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for Air why instructions have been given to military personnel permitting the flying badge of the Royal Air Force to be worn by those who have qualified for it but not the observer's badge?

Major Sir James Edmondson (Vice-Chamberlain of the Household): I have been asked to reply. I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Leslie Boyce) on 15th July.

ROADS (WINTER CONDITIONS).

Captain Strickland: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether, in connection with the precautions to be taken for keeping roads open for traffic in times of heavy snowfall or severe frost in the approaching winter, he has recently received reports from his local officers concerned stating whether or not adequate provision for the purpose has been made by all highway authorities within their respective local areas; and whether any of such reports indicate that the highway authorities concerned have not yet provided themselves with an adequate supply of snow-ploughs or other equipment which past experience has shown to be necessary for keeping the roads open?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Colonel Llewellin): I do not consider it necessary that every highway authority should possess snow-ploughs or similar snow-clearing equipment. At the present time the competing claims for war equipment would in any event make universal provision impossible. We are, however, satisfied that such equipment is available in areas where it is most likely to be needed, and 100 highway authorities who were not fully provided have taken advantage of an offer recently made by the Ministry of a grant towards the cost, and have ordered equipment.

CIVIL DEFENCE (GAS TESTS).

Mr. Edmund Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to an announcement that irritant gas was to be released in a North Midland town for a fortnight, beginning on 27th September, without further warnings or notices being given; and whether he will issue directions with regard to the conditions under which any gas tests which may be decided upon should be conducted?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security (Mr. Mabane): Yes, Sir. Such tear gas exercises are an important element of the process of educating the public in the use of their respirators. As regards the second part of the Question, scheme-making local authorities know that they cannot release tear gas in public without prior consultation with the Regional Commissioner's officers, who have already been fully informed of the conditions under which these exercises should be conducted. In addition, detailed instructions will be made available to local authorities in a pamphlet to be issued shortly.

Mr. Harvey: Is not the exercise of tear gas experiments without warning or notice likely to cause serious hardship to invalids, children and animals?

Mr. Mabane: Particular care was taken in this case to secure that there was no hardship to old people or children.

Captain Strickland: In view of the fact that Hitler will give no notice when he is going to use irritant gas, is it not wise to


hold these tests from time to time in order to compel people to carry their gas masks with them ready for emergency?

DRAPERY THEFTS, BURNT OAK.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Home Secretary whether he can give any information as to the charge made against Frank Kelly, a butcher's manager, of Wendover Road, Harlesden, N.W., who, on 30th September, gave boys £20 to steal drapery from their employers for him; and how the boys were dealt with?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): I have made inquiry and am informed that Kelly was convicted of receiving property valued at £100 which had been stolen from certain stores at Burnt Oak on 19th August, and also, in conjunction with two boys aged 16 and 14 and their mothers, of conspiring to receive and steal the property of the stores on various dates. Kelly was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment; the two mothers were fined £50 and £30 respectively; the two boys were bound over and placed on probation.

SCHOOL MEALS, CARMARTHENSHIRE.

Mr. James Griffiths: asked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the failure of the Carmarthenshire County Education Committee to provide meals at their schools; and whether he will take steps to secure a reconsideration of the matter?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Ede): Yes, Sir. The Board have strongly pressed the authority to extend their provision of meals for school children, and my right hon. Friend is pursuing the matter.

ARMED FORCES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).

General Sir George Jeffreys: asked the Minister of Pensions whether in view of the reduction some years ago of the pensions of officers on account of the fall in the cost of living, he will now, in view of the increase in the cost, at least make good the reduction in question?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions (Mr. Paling): There has not at any time been a reduction in the rates of retired pay for disabled officers laid down in Part 1 of the First Schedule to the Royal Warrant of 2nd July, 1920, nor in the rates of additional retired pay for disablement in the case of regular officers, and these rates were based on a cost of living figure higher than that now prevailing. I presume the hon. and gallant Member is referring to the adjustments in the rates of Service retired pay, and I would refer him to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a Question on this subject by the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) on 30th September.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that answer amounted in effect to a refusal to reconsider these rates which were stabilised at a rate 11 per cent, less than the original basic rate, and in view of the fact that increases of wages and salaries have been widely given on account of the increase in the cost of living, will he do bare justice to these officers, who are in many cases suffering real hardship?

Mr. Paling: The rates were based upon a cost of living figure higher than that now prevailing.

Sir A. Southby: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that officers in the Service had a cut in basic pay at a time when no senior civil servant had had any cut at all?

Sir G. Jeffreys: asked the Minister of Pensions whether, in view of the low assessment of the pensions of widows of officers killed on active service, and especially in view of the comparison of such pensions with others awarded in civil life, he will approve their early increase?

Mr. Paling: My right hon. Friend is of the opinion that the existing rates of pension for the widows of officers whose death is attributable to service bear a proper relation to the rates laid down generally in the various pension instruments and do not, accordingly, call for revision.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these rates of pension compare unfavourably in many cases with wages paid to unskilled labour under war conditions? Is he also aware that if these ladies possess, or their husbands possessed, any private means, they are called upon to pay Death Duties on them?

ENEMY OCCUPIED COUNTRIES (RESPONSIBILITY FOR CRIMES).

Captain Strickland: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give consideration to the matter of making a declaration of policy that, so far as possible, after the war, those responsible for murder, cruelty and oppression committed on persons such as hostages and others in enemy-occupied territories for deeds over which they had no control, will be brought to trial and, if found guilty, punished according to their offence?

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make it clear that it is the intention of the Allies to compile lists of those responsible for crimes committed by the enemy during the war, and to deal suitably with the individuals responsible at the end of the war when they become available for arrest?

Mr. Walker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that the German authorities in the occupied territories have introduced the practice of seizing and executing hostages, thereby violating the most elementary principles of law and justice, he will give an undertaking that those responsible for these murders will, after the war, be brought to trial and judgment, and made to surfer the penalty appropriate to their crimes?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Richard Law): His Majesty's Government have had this subject under consideration; and my right hon. Friend is approaching the Allied Governments on the matter.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Are we now ourselves keeping such lists as we are able to formulate from the information at our disposal?

Mr. Law: I think I can assure the hon. gentleman that these actions are not passing unnoticed, either in the countries where they occur or in this country.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the Departments do all in their power to keep the evidence that is available?

CROYDON TOWN HALL (REBUILDING).

Captain Strickland: asked the Minister of Health when it is proposed to release the necessary labour and material

to commence the rebuilding of Croydon Town Hall; and when the preliminary grant of £12,000, made by the War Damage Commission towards the cost, will be paid over?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh): My right hon. Friend understands that the necessary labour is available for this work, and he has authorised release of the necessary materials. He is informed that the War Damage Commission have made the advanced payment referred to in the last part of the Question.

Captain Strickland: Is the hon. Lady aware of the attitude generally adopted towards much more serious repair operations in many blitzed cities where neither labour nor material is available?

Miss Horsbrugh: I think each case has been looked upon on its merits by the local authority concerned. In this case the question of material and labour has been gone into very fully.

OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Major Sir Edward Cadogan: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the increased cost of living, he proposes to alter the rate of old age pensions or to effect any change to bring old age pensions into accord with the existing conditions?

Miss Horsbrugh: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given to a Question on this subject asked by my hon. Friend the Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) on 11th September.

Sir E. Cadogan: Is it not a fact that this is the only social service which has not yet come up for review?

Miss Horsbrugh: Any person receiving an old age pension can apply for a supplementary pension if the amount is not sufficient.

Mr. Tinker: Is the hon. Lady aware of the feeling of the old age pensioners that they are not getting a fair deal, and that they are asking for a flat-rate increase?

Miss Horsbrugh: The Question deals with whether there should be a rise in the present old age pension. A supplementary pension is granted, and that would make up for any difference in the need of the aged person.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Is the hon. Lady aware that in far too many cases supplementary pensions are refused and not granted, and that that is what is troubling the old age pensioners?

Miss Horsbrugh: If the hon. Member will bring to our notice cases where they are refused, I will go into them.

COLONIES (MUNITIONS PRODUCTION).

Major Lyons: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has satisfied himself that the maximum possible use is being made of all industrial plants, including the smaller shipyards, railway, mine, motor and other engineering workshops, however small, located within the Colonial Empire in furthering munition production in cooperation with this country or with the nearest Dominion, or with India; and whether instructions in this connection have been issued to Colonial Governors after consultation with the Ministers of Supply and Aircraft Production?

Mr. George Hall: Yes, Sir. Every endeavour is being made to utilise such potentialities as exist in the Colonial Dependencies for the production of munitions, miscellaneous military equipment and stores. The contribution which the smaller Dependencies can make is a modest one, and it has been left to the Governors to devise plans in consultation with the local representatives of the fighting services. The potentialities of the Eastern Colonies and Palestine are much greater. These territories and also the East African Dependencies are all associated with the Eastern Group Supply Council or the Middle East Supply Centre, bodies which have been created for the specific purpose of organising the use of local capacity. Some of them are producing important quantities of warlike stores. To assist in this organisation a member of the Colonial Office has been attached, specially to the Eastern Group Supply Council and has visited nearly all the territories concerned.

Major Lyons: Are co-operation and consultation taking place between the Ministry of Aircraft Production and the Ministry of Supply?

Mr. Hall: No general instruction has been sent out to the Governors, but those Governors in Colonies where there are facilities for the purpose of producing these munitions and equipment are requested to do so.

Earl Winterton: Will the hon. Gentleman consider publishing a statement, as is done in the case of India, regarding the amount of development in the Territories, Colonies and Protectorates under the administration of his Noble Friend?

Mr. Hall: I will put that request to my Noble Friend.

Mr. Wedgwood: Have any of the Colonies pre-eminence in producing materials, and are any actual deliveries taking place, and from which Colony?

Mr. Hall: I could not answer that question without notice.

ABYSSINIA (ARMY).

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can make a statement concerning the decision to dissolve the patriot forces in Ethiopia and to recruit a new Ethiopian army?

Captain Margesson: It is the Emperor's intention, with which His Majesty's Government are in agreement, to raise and maintain an Ethiopian army under his own command. His Majesty's Government will provide a military mission of British officers and instructors to assist the Emperor in the organisation and training of these forces. The exact size and type of the units which will compose the Ethiopian army have not finally been decided upon.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT).

Mr. Horabin: (forasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the advisability of granting a subsidy to the Kitchen Committee sufficient to enable them to make reasonable allowances during periods when the House is not in Session, to members of the temporary staff who, at present, receive no payment, and have found great difficulty in obtaining any casual work?

Sir K. Wood: The Kitchen Committee is already in receipt of a Grant in Aid, £4,000 being the amount provided in the House of Commons Vote for the current year. The conditions of service of staff engaged by the Kitchen Committee are of course a matter for the Committee itself.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the Chancellor consider representations that the subsidy should be increased in order to provide tolerable conditions for those who serve us?

Sir K. Wood: That is a matter for the Committee.

Mr. Thorne: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the subsidy is chiefly used for the purpose of providing food for Members?

PRISONERS OF WAR (EXCHANGE NEGOTIATIONS).

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can make a statement on the recent hold-up of exchange of prisoners of war?

Captain Margesson: The conditions governing the repatriation of sick and wounded prisoners of war are clearly stated in Article 68 of the International Convention relative to the treatment of prisoners of war, which the present German Government have recognised as binding upon them.
Article 68 states:
Belligerents shall be required to send back to their own country without regard to rank or numbers, after rendering them in a fit condition for transport, prisoners of war who are seriously ill or seriously wounded.
I would ask hon. Members to note carefully the words "without regard to rank or numbers." Under Article 9 of the International Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armies in the Field medical personnel and chaplains likewise have a right to be repatriated. Proposals for repatriation have been under discussion through the Protecting Power for many months but the two Governments were unable to reach agreement on the question of the route and method of transport. However, on the 1st September a proposal was received from the German Government through the Swiss Legation suggesting

that sick and wounded should be repatriated in a British hospital ship through Channel ports. This suggestion had been put forward several months before by His Majesty's Government but had then been rejected by the German Government. His Majesty's Government, through the Swiss Government, accepted this proposal, which referred only to the sick and severely wounded prisoners of war and did not include protected personnel entitled to be repatriated.
On 9th September a message was received from the German Government, through the American Embassy, stating that there were some 1,200 British prisoners of war approved for repatriation by the Mixed Medical Commission in Germany. Negotiations proceeded on the clear understanding that the operation dealt with those eligible for repatriation under Article 68 and no others. In answer to this message His Majesty's Government replied that the operation could be carried out in the period from the 4th to 7th October.
The German Government as late as 20th September expressed the hope that repatriation might be begun as soon as possible after 1st October, adding that they hoped that it might be possible eventually to include in the repatriation sick and over-age civilian internees, but they stated quite definitely that they had no intention of making the repatriation of wounded prisoners of war conditional upon the repatriation of civilian internees. At the same time they also stated that whereas they were sending over 1,200 British prisoners of war, we were only sending over 150 or so Germans and they expressed the hope that the British Government would consider its gain such as to justify the adoption of a receptive attitude to any proposals which might follow for the exchange of civilians.
On 26th September we received another message from the German Government asking that German civilian women and children and men not of military age now in this country should be sent back so as to fill any available space in the hospital ships. On 29th September we received a further message from the German Government stating that agreement in principle by His Majesty's Government to the mutual repatriation of sick and wounded combatants who are now in third countries, such as Eire, Uruguay and un-


occupied France, was an indispensable condition to the carrying out of the proposed scheme of repatriation. His Majesty's Government replied that in pursuance of their previously declared policy they reaffirmed their readiness to agree to the mutual repatriation of women, children and men over military age, and as a token of their intention they would send with the sick and wounded prisoners of war a first batch of some 60 German civilians. They also agreed to the proposal regarding third countries.
On 2nd October the German Government replied that in view of the unsatisfactory attitude of His Majesty's Government a new situation had arisen which made it impossible for the German Government to adhere to the date agreed upon. Arrangements were, however, made to start repatriation on 7th October. But yesterday morning a message was received from the German Government, through the American Government, stating that the German Government was now prepared only to agree to a "limited exchange" on a numerical basis. Attempts were made yesterday afternoon by wireless to clarify the position.
When, however, it became evident that the German Government was attempting at the last moment completely to overthrow the previously agreed basis for the repatriation scheme, His Majesty's Government found it necessary to cancel the sailing of the ships. The German sick and wounded are being disembarked and sent back to their hospitals and camps. Whilst His Majesty's Government were most reluctant to forgo any chance of bringing back to their homes the sick and severely wounded British prisoners of war, they were not prepared in view of the course of the negotiations in the last few days to risk being made the victims of a flagrant breach of faith on the part of the German Government, more especially as the bulk of the British sick and wounded would thereby clearly lose all chance of repatriation.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: Was there any suggestion in the proposals made by the German Government that Hess should be exchanged?

Captain Margesson: No, Sir, none.

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE, NEW YORK (MR. ATTLEE).

Mr. Lees-Smith: by Private Noticeasked the Prime Minister whether he can state if any representative of His Majesty's Government is attending the International Labour Conference to be held at New York towards the end of this month, in addition to the delegates.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): Yes, Sir. I am glad to inform the House that my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal will go to New York as the representative of His Majesty's Government at this important conference.

Orders of the Day — PROLONGATION OF PARLIAMENT BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The House will remember that last year it was thought expedient and necessary that Parliament should be continued for a further year, notwithstanding the provisions of the Parliament Act, and the House was good enough to pass the necessary measure. But another year has now passed, and it is therefore necessary for the Government to come to the House and to ask its sanction to the continuation of Parliament for one more year. We did consider last year whether we should have power, subject to the approval of the House, to continue Parliament further by Order in Council, but it was thought that on this vitally-important constitutional matter it was right that postponement should be carried through by legislation, so that the House of Commons would have the fullest rights over the matter. It is in these circumstances that I bring this Bill before the House.
There is one change of drafting in this Bill. It will be seen by Clause I that Section 7 of the Parliament Act, 1911, which provides that five years shall be substituted for seven years as the time fixed for the maximum duration of Parliament under the Septennial Act, 1715, shall not apply to the present Parliament. This is a different form from last year, when we extended the period permitted by the Parliament Act, 1911, by one year. If we were to take that course this time it would be redundant and tautological, because if the Parliament Act, 1911, were not on the Statute Book the period of Parliament would be seven years under the Act of 1715. Therefore, to have followed the drafting of last year's Act would be tantamount to saying that for seven years there shall be substituted seven years. Now, by the present Bill, the provision in the Parliament Act, 1911, is amended, and automatically we fall back on the provisions of the Septennial Act, 1715. What we shall do next year

I am not sure, but presumably we shall have to add a year to the limit fixed by the Act of 1715.
The reasons for the Measure are, I think, reasonably clear to the House, and if I address the House shortly on the Bill it will not be through any underestimate of the important constitutional point which is involved in the Bill but because really there is very little to be said. In the first place, it is the case that the reasons which obtained last year still obtain, and among those reasons is the fact that no register of electors has been prepared since 1939. That register, therefore, is at least two years stale; and, moreover, apart from the normal consideration that a register becomes out of date after a time, there is the added difficulty that with military enlistments, the movements of population in industry, evacuation, and so on, the present register must be in rather a bad way. The only thing to do, therefore, would be to have a new register; but owing to the pre-occupation of local registration officers and their staffs with war work of one sort and another, the preoccupation of the appropriate officers in the Departments of State, and to the fact that the political organisations of the parties are very much out of tune, because a large proportion of the political agents are no longer at their posts, I think the House will agree that it would be quite impracticable at the present time to renew and bring up to date the register. I think it would also be generally agreed by the House that in the midst of a great war, and a war of this particular nature, it would be very undesirable to hold a general election, enjoyable in some respects as that diversion always is, and that we must deny ourselves that luxury in the present circumstances; and, indeed, the circumstances are such that it would be almost impossible to produce a representative result. Therefore, I think the House will concur in the view that it really is impracticable to do other than continue the present Parliament for a further year.
The House will remember that last year I did give an undertaking on behalf of the Government that whilst we could not foresee what circumstances would arise, and whilst the power of dissolution of Parliament, of course, does remain, nevertheless it was the wish of the Government that before the time that an election might


arise any matters connected with the law which it might be; desired to raise could be raised in the time which would be at our disposal. On that point I do not think I can go further without getting beyond the limitations of this Bill, and the House will recall the undertaking which I gave on behalf of the Government last year and which I now repeat in the form in which it was then given. I do not think I need say anything further. The issue is perfectly simple, and I hope the House will not think that the brevity of this introduction of the Bill in any way suggests any lack of appreciation of the constitutional importance of the issue with which it deals. I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading, and to pass it through all its stages as early as may be.

Mr. Garro Jones: I am sure the House will be very glad that the Home Secretary has emphasised the importance of this Bill. Last year a similar Bill was described in another place as an example of the sovereign power of Parliament. To that I would add that it is also an illustration of the principle that the means of effecting every change in the Constitution are to be found within the Constitution itself, and so, in passing this Bill, we are undoubtedly operating on the Constitution. Of all the Bills which come before the House, there are none which we ought to consider more carefully than those which affect the Constitution and of all Bills of this kind none raise a more delicate issue for this House than those which involve the question of deferring an appeal to the electors. The Home Secretary stated that the reasons for the present Bill were perfectly clear. No one will dissent from that view, but however strong may be the case for such a Bill, however obvious and unchallenged may be the reasons for it and however little dissent from it there may be in the country, it is very important that the House should not take for granted that the country will assume the rectitude of our action in passing this Bill. It is, I think, most important that steps should be taken to inform the country of precisely why the Bill is being passed.
It would not be relevant to the Bill to discuss the question of when, after the war, an Election should be held, but, clearly, many of the reasons which impel us now to postpone an Election will be

equally applicable for some time after the war. There are, of course, both political and technical reasons to be considered. Nobody can forecast to day what the political conditions will be after the war, but it should be possible to make some kind of exploratory, technical inquiries between now and the time when we shall have to pass another Bill of this character into the difficulties likely to arise when we come to re-establish voters' lists and an Election Register. Questions of great administrative difficulty are involved and it is very desirable that the Government should set up some kind of fact-finding committee in order to prepare the way for the next step.
There are, even to-day, some purely political reasons why we should not hold a General Election. I am not sure whether political reasons can be validly advanced in support of this Bill, but it may do no harm to mention one or two of them. Those of us who have been watching the by-elections have noticed that although, in many cases, there has been complete unanimity among candidates on the paramount issue now before the country, there have been extremely sharp controversies on minor matters of policy. The result has been that the real unity which exists in the nation, has often been obscured by those minor controversies. Clearly, that undesirable tendency would be greatly magnified if we were to hold a General Election at the present time. Hitherto at by-elections we have been spared the sight of candidates whose only method of obtaining votes is to exploit the misery of war, but if the war were prolonged, or if we were to hold a General Election, I think such candidates would be bound to appear. I am not sure that that would be a useful thing for democracy. We all know what their methods of seeking votes would be. It would be to clamour against everything unpopular merely because it is unpopular; to direct attention to every mistake whether the mistake was avoidable or not; to harp on every suffering, whether it was possible to remedy that suffering or not, and, of course, to promise an easy end to the war and to all our troubles.
However, we are, fortunately, not obliged to consider political arguments against the Bill. We have to maintain this Parliament in being owing to the compulsion of circumstances. In other words,


the country must make the best and the most of this Parliament because it is administratively impossible at the present time to elect another Parliament with any better mandate. It is to be doubted whether everybody understands how large an administrative task it is to prepare the lists for an Election, even in normal times let alone in times and under conditions such as these. It is necessary to check the qualifications of voters, to prepare and print the lists, to hear objections and appeals, to prepare lists of absent voters and of out-voters—a small but important class. Not one of these essential processes is administratively possible while large masses of the population are shifting. I say nothing about the time of candidates and of workers or even about the time of Ministers, though it would be a risky thing to harass Ministers with double duty even for a month. That is particularly the case when, according to some unkind critics, one or two Ministers are only just equal to their ordinary duties.
That brings me to the last and perhaps the most powerful argument m favour of the Bill. What a military opportunity it would be for the enemies of this country and of democracy, if the country were plunged into a General Election, to throw the whole electoral machinery during those critical hours, into complete confusion, by bombing and machine-gun attacks. If there were no other reason that is one eventuality which we could not afford to face in present circumstances. But whatever may be the reasons for the Bill, and I think they are decisive, I would again emphasise the point that those reasons should be made known to the country and in doing so, we might well point out to the country that although we cannot claim to be a Parliament fresh from the polls, this is by no means a stale or stagnant assembly. In various ways it has suffered wastage on a scale which is surprising to those hon. Members who have tried to work it out and, of course, it has received a steady inflow of new Members. I am afraid I have not myself worked out the total number of new Members who have come into the present Parliament since it was first elected, but I believe that the change-over in that period has been at least as great as the change of personnel resulting from some General

Elections. I believe the figure approaches 200.
That being so, I would like to make one or two suggestions to help us to increase our representative character, even if this is fated to be a very long Parliament. The first is that, during a Parliament such as this, which depends for its freshness upon by-elections, in many of which to secure nomination to the constituency is the same thing as to secure a place in this House, those who are charged with the responsibility of selecting the candidates and of presenting them to a constituency have a special and onerous responsibility. The new Members who so regularly come to the Table can' do a very great deal to add to or to diminish the vigour of the House of Commons. It will certainly do Parliament no good if the candidates who are selected by that means are chosen as the representatives of special interests. If that mistake were made, and if Parliament should last a very long time, we should indeed be in danger of becoming a very unrepresentative body.
The second suggestion I make by way of paraphrase from the Prime Minister. It would perhaps be presumptuous if I made it on my own authority. The right hon. Gentleman said that we owed a special duty to our constituencies to remain in the closest contact with all sections of opinion there, in the present circumstances, and that this was a duty owed also to the House of Commons, as a representative institution. That statement put a point which might very well be recalled to the attention of Members of this House, for their consideration. Even if Parliament is destined to remain in being for a very long time, we can look back upon history, and draw some reflection and inspiration from the recollection that the longest Parliaments in our history have not necessarily made the least contribution to democracy and to freedom. Even our longest Parliament, which met, according to the best of my recollection, about 300 years ago, was not least creditable in its achievements. It promoted many reforms, and it destroyed tyranny. Like this Parliament, it began in party rivalry and finished in party co-operation. [Interruption.] As my hon. Friend reminds me, I hope that we shall not be brought to an end by the same irregular method as that Parliament certainly was. We must all hope that this great crisis


will not require us to remain here for 11 or 12 years, the length of time during which that Parliament sat. This crisis gives an opportunity to this Parliament such as no Parliament has ever had before to lead and to serve the nation well.

Sir Percy Harris: I do not think it really required the reasoned speech of the hon. Member for North Aberdeen.(Mr. Garro Jones) to persuade the House that the Bill was inevitable. There are obvious difficulties in the way of a General Election at this moment, and they are almost insuperable. I need only mention the black-out, the danger of invasion in the middle of controversy, the stale register dating back to 1939 and becoming daily more out of date, and the large transfers of population. Half the electors are scattered North, South, East and West or are engaged directly or indirectly on war work. We cannot, however, ignore the fact that we were elected only for five years and that we are re-electing ourselves—a nice, comfortable and pleasant thing to do. It is much easier to do this than to enter into controversy, have to face electors, make speeches, and run the risk of not being elected or of being elected, according to the issue. Section 7 of the Parliament Act, a great constitutional Measure involving very large principles, deliberately limited the life of Parliament to five years. It annulled the seven-year Parliament tradition and reduced the period, in order to make the House of Commons keep contact with the electors. I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman emphasised the vital constitutional principle involved.
What we are now doing is against the spirit of the Constitution, but we have to do many unconstitutional things in face of the appalling catastrophe of war. In October, 1942, we shall be starting on the eighth year of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman was not quite sure what would take place next year, but he seemed to have little doubt that we shall be asked to pass a similar Bill in 1942. In spite of what was said by the hon. Gentleman, I think he would agree—it is no use mincing matters—that as every year passes we have less right to claim to speak for the people. A great part of the public would like to take part in politics but are not on the register, and there is no reality about the situation. It is our duty to

concentrate the whole of our energies on the war and not to allow those energies to be diverted by political controversy, but it does not necessarily follow that general elections are impossible during war-time. There have been two cases already inside the British Commonwealth of Nations—Canada in the early months of the war, and Australia. I agree that, in the light of all the existing circumstances, a general election here would be regrettable.
But we must not forget that, if the war is being fought for anything in particular, it is for democracy, and that this House is the trustee for the Parliamentary system. We cannot sit down complacently and think that our responsibility has ended when we have re-elected ourselves. Young men and young women who were 21 and 25 when this Parliament was elected, and also young men and young women reaching the age to appear on the register are debarred from taking any part even when there are by-elections. Of course, there are precedents from the last war. I am all for precedents; our whole Parliamentary system is built up on them; and during the last war Parliament did extend its life. I was a Member at that time, and I remember legislation being introduced. The difference is that the House of Commons and the Government of that day were not satisfied to leave it at that. I happened to hear the then Prime Minister, Mr. Asquith, on the subject when the war was at its height, when we could hear the guns firing across the Channel and hundreds of thousands of men were being killed or were facing peril under appalling conditions on the Western front, the Parliament of that day did not dismiss this as a simple issue which could be brushed aside with the feeling that the whole of their responsibilities had been met. I quoted last year, and I do not mind quoting again, the great Parliamentarian and constitutional lawyer who was then Prime Minister. On 16th August, 1916, he said:
… with regard to the Parliament which is going to undertake the work of reconstruction after the war, it is eminently desirable that you should provide an electoral basis which will make the Parliament reflective and representative of the general opinion of the country, and give to its decisions a moral authority which you cannot obtain in what I may call a scratch, improvised and makeshift electorate. Let us by all means use the time —those of us who are not absolutely absorbed in the conduct of the war—in those months to see if we cannot work out by general agreement


some scheme under which, both as regards the electorate and the distribution of electoral power, a Parliament can be created at the end of the war capable and adequate for discharging these tasks, and commanding the confidence of the country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th August, 1916; col. 1906, vol. LXXXV.]
He said, in a far better form and in a far better way than I can, what is in my mind at the present time. His successor, the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) translated his idea into practical legislation. A revolutionary change was made, right in the middle of the war in the following year, in the whole of our electoral system and the general constitution of this House. Women were given the franchise, probably the most controversial issue regarding the character of the electorate that has been made during the last century. I know what the views and sympathies of the present Prime Minister are. He would have no hesitation in dealing with the form of our elections and the character of the electorate, or anything of that kind, if a case could be made out, as my hon. Friend quite rightly suggested, by a fact-finding commission regarding the necessity for dealing with the problem. In January, 1934, he said:
We hear a great deal about the reform of the House of Lords. Surely both Houses of Parliament ought to be strengthened, not only for constructive purposes but to enable them to resist the dangers of dictatorship.
If it was necessary in 1934 to strengthen this House to deal with the dangers of dictatorship, surely the need is still greater in 1941. I know we have a solemn undertaking by the Government that after the Armistice every opportunity will be given to Parliament either to reform itself or to deal with the problem of redistribution. All of us would deplore a rush election; it is much better for a reasonable period to elapse, and not as in 1918, when after the war, before the electors had time to think they were asked to decide the vital problems of the conditions of peace and the legislation to deal with post-war problems. I am in favour, and I think the House is in favour, of a reasonable period being allowed to elapse before a General Election, but how can we tell what circumstances and conditions are likely to be in that far-off period? We do not know what the feeling of the country will be. Pressure may come from outside which will force the Government of the

day to appeal to the electorate. The Prime Minister has rightly protected himself on that point. It may be that there will be so much turmoil, so much controversy as to what the conditions of peace should be and as to the problems of social reform that it will be necessary to have an appeal to the country. It would be unfortunate when that time comes, if the House of Commons had let go these precious months and had done nothing either to inquire into or to deal with these problems.
I suggest that the Government, following the precedent of the last war in 1917 and 1918, have the responsibility of dealing with the electoral system with courage and imagination. They have to make up their minds how they will deal with it, and whether they will set up, to use the phrase of my hon. Friend, some fact-finding commission or committee to deal with the vital problems of the constitution of this House, the electorate, the system of election and all those issues into which an inquiry is long overdue. Parliament and Parliamentary institutions are on their trial. I am satisfied that they will stand the strain of the next year or two. I am not so pessimistic as my hon. Friend who feels that the elector cannot be trusted to deal with some of these burning social questions which are bound to arise during the next year or two.

Mr. Garro Jones: I would like to say that I never said that.

Sir P. Harris: I am very glad my hon. Friend did not. I must have misunderstood him, but he did suggest that there might be some people ready to exploit the poverty and misery inevitable during a long and exhausting war. He suggested that the electorate are not to be relied upon, that they might be exploited by unscrupulous people. I say that if you have a good system of elections, it will be safe in this country, with its Parliamentary traditions, to trust the people as the only way in which to make democracy work. I support this Bill, but I make the qualification that I hope the Government during the next few months will seriously consider whether it would not be wise to set up some commission or fact-finding body to deal with the constitution of Parliament.

Mr. McGovern: Having listened to the presentation of the


case by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, I would say that there is a measure of agreement regarding a number of the reasons for the postponement of a Parliamentary election. The facts that evacuation has taken place on a large scale in many areas, that men are serving with the Colours in various parts of the world and that industrial workers have been transferred from some areas in very great numbers, would give adequate reasons for the postponement of an election during the period of this national or international crisis. But if we were to look back, we would discover that, in normal times, in a large number of Parliamentary areas, more people normally refrain from voting than would have actually elected the Member if they had turned out to the poll. Therefore, from the point of view that adequate democratic representation is not given in Parliamentary elections during the war, we might say that normally the democracy of the country do not desire to exert their influence or energy in turning out to the poll to record their vote for the return of Members to the House of Commons.
It is true that during the period of war one of the vital things that is required to keep Parliamentary life interesting to the public, and also to give the most complete democratic expression, is a real, vigorous and courageous Opposition in this House. We are debarred from having that, due to the fact that those who, at Parliamentary elections, fought one another and condemned each other as being the menace to the interests of the country, now join hands and sit contentedly on the Front Bench, parade themselves as the National Government of this country and consider that nobody can do the job but themselves. There are in the country, or in the House, reasons given—there might be 615 reasons given—for having no election, because every Member in this House would feel that. My hon. Friend says there are certainly three. He assumes that the three Members of the Independent Labour party are less acceptable to the majority of the people of this country than are the Yes-men who have no independent thoughts or minds at all or the time-servers who are prepared to serve any masters at a price. I refuse to accept that as being the opinion of the great mass of the people of this country, whether they agree with us at the moment or not. In the last war they did

not agree with the Home Secretary. He has become Home Secretary—

Mr. Speaker: That has very little to do with the Bill which we are now discussing.

Mr. McGavern: I do not quite see that. I had not gone on at any length; I was answering an interruption. I understood that according to the rules of Debate I was entitled to do so. If it is embarrassing to the Home Secretary, I will refrain from proceeding along those lines.

Mr. Maxton: I did not quite catch your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. Is it against the Rules of the House to criticise a Minister of the Crown?

Mr. Speaker: No; all that I ruled was that what the hon. Member was saying had nothing to do with the Bill before the House.

Mr. McGovern: I will let it go at that. In so far as the House is concerned, I realise that 615 reasons could be given, and, in my estimation, Parliamentary government during this war, owing to the fact that there is not a virile Opposition —whether we agree with it or not is beside the point—to be found on the Benches engaging in what the Speaker called, some time ago, "the cut and thrust of Debate," in order to make Parliamentary life and democracy interesting to the people outside, has ceased to operate. I would also make it clear that during this period of Parliament, when Parliamentary seats have become secure, due to the postponement of elections, there has been a notorious falling-off in the attendance of a large number of Members of this House, and that there are many Members who are scarcely, if ever, in the House at all, that they disappear for three, six or nine months on end, and sometimes come and clamour against Parliament exercising its normal course of a holiday after they have been in the backwoods for a lengthy period. I would further say that Parliamentary life suffers tremendously from that security which is given to the average Member by the postponement of elections. We see an example given by the representative of the Liberal party in his speech, when he said that we had an example of elections in Australia, that we had a novel experiment that had


taken place in the Australian Parliament, where the reigning Conservative Government had been overthrown during the period of Budget Debate, and destroyed, and the Opposition had become the Government. By that process, he said, the very incidence of taxation was to be changed from a large section of the poor to a section of the rich by the demand inside that Chamber itself.
There are cases, in this House, for example, where Parliamentary government has not been allowed to function, and I am amazed. I have heard in recent months a clamour being made in the country, rightly or wrongly, for the unseating of the hon. and gallant Member for Peebles and Southern (Captain Ramsay), due to the fact that he has been detained under Regulation 18B. But there is another Member of Parliament in this House, for one of the Edinburgh Divisions, who for nearly five years has never been in this House. No Conservative or Labour organisation has challenged the right of this individual to hold a seat in this House while he has never been near the House in that time. If there were a real democratic desire in the country, both in the area concerned and in the Conservative and Labour headquarters, there would be a demand for a surrender of that seat. I am quite confident that if conduct of that kind were indulged in, say, by myself, there would soon be a clamour for the surrender of the seat, and rightly so. If you are in favour of Parliamentary democracy, there should be actions taking place in the House and the country to show people that you are in favour of democracy.

Mr. McKie: May I remind the hon. Member that there are also two Members from Ulster, for Fermanagh and Tyrone (Mr. Cunningham and Mr. Mulvey), who have not taken their seats?

Mr. McGovern: That would be an added reason. I am prepared to complete the picture. I have been amazed at the way in which some areas tolerate Members never being in the House and attending to their Parliamentary duties. All these activities are assisting to destroy Parliamentary government. Mark you, I have never been a 100 per cent. Parliamentarian. I believe that Parliament can. occupy a very useful point in the agitation for a new order of society and for a

transfer of power, but I have always believed that every great question was settled, not by the pressures inside this House, but by the pressures that came from outside this House. Almost every question has been settled in outside institutions. While I am not a 100 per cent. Parliamentarian, I can see the uses of Parliament and its abuses. During the last 11½ years in this House I have seen independence of thought, mind and activity destroyed by the power machines which operate. The power machines that threaten Members assist in destroying—

Mr. Speaker: That has nothing to do with this Bill, which is to prolong this Parliament by one year.

Mr. McGovern: But I want to show, at the same time, the effects of this postponement of elections on the Parliamentary life of this country and on the activity of Members. Therefore, I want to show not only the reasons for the postponement, but also that the Government should pay attention to the fact that Parliament as at present constituted does not completely serve the needs of the community. In getting to that point, I was attempting to analyse the effects of this postponement. I say that the postponement of elections plays its part, and the security given to Members plays a very effective part; and the destruction of a Parliamentary Opposition undermines the Parliamentary life of the community. It is not sufficient for us to believe in the protection of democratic rights: it is very necessary that we should pay more than lip service to this question. To-day, while there is a combination of all the interests in the country with a view to postponing elections, we have to face the fact that the real demand for the postponement comes from the fact that the Opposition have largely joined forces with the Government, and that, therefore, they have a vested interest in seeing that the postponement of elections takes place. That vested interest is playing a tremendous part in undermining the confidence of people outside in the value of Parliament. I have always believed, and I still believe, that dictators do not destroy Parliamentary institutions. It is those who have shouted loudest about democracy who have betrayed democracy and who have destroyed Parliamentary institutions.

Sir Reginald Blair: It seems to me that the passing of this Bill is un-


avoidable. I have risen only to ask the Home Secretary whether he will be good enough to amplify the undertaking he gave last year. The aim of a great democracy is to get the true voice of the people. I cannot see anything in this Bill which will help to secure that. Hon. Members will be aware of the great anomalies of the present register. It is absurd that men in this House have to represent over 200,000 people and that others represent over 4,000 or 5,000. I have risen to support the plea made by the right hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) that when the Government have time they will, in this period of reconstruction, produce something to meet this anomaly before they have to introduce such a Bill again.

Mr. Naylor: There is evidently a great misunderstanding as to the real meaning of this Bill. It has been assumed by all hon. Members who have spoken up to now, and even by you, Sir, just recently, that this is a Bill to prolong the life of Parliament by 12 months. That is not in agreement with the wording of the Bill. If I understood the Home Secretary correctly, he said that the effect of the Bill was to revert to the provisions of the Septennial Act, which fixed seven years as the limit of a Parliament. But this Bill does more than that. It says that there shall be no limit whatever to the duration of the present Parliament. When the amending Act of 1911 was passed, the seven-years' period was repealed. Therefore, if you say that the provisions of the 1911 Act, fixing the duration of Parliament at five years, shall not apply to the present Parliament, you say, in effect, that there shall be no limit at all. I raise this in no hypercritical spirit, but the House should be clear as to the constitutional issue involved. It is one thing for the House of Commons itself to say that it will prolong its Parliamentary life for 12 months. Even that is a serious constitutional issue. To suggest that there shall be no limit to the duration of Parliament, is a much more serious constitutional issue than was implied formerly. Just how the Home Secretary can remedy what is evidently an oversight I cannot say. Is it to be done by an addition to the Bill, to the effect that it shall not apply to the present Parliament during the ensuing 12 months,

so limiting the duration of Parliament definitely to the seven-years' period, with a prospect of new legislation at the end of the year? I have no doubt the Home Secretary is fully prepared to answer the point I have raised, which I think is of great importance not only to Parliament but to the electors.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: I do not propose to deal with the very important legal and constitutional point raised by the hon. Member for South-East Southwark (Mr. Naylor), except to say that I believe the wording of this Bill makes it clear that the Septennial Act will apply, and that further legislation will be necessary if the life of this Parliament is to be prolonged beyond the terms of the Septennial Act. But I rise to support the plea made by the hon. Member for Hendon (Sir R. Blair) and the right hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) that the Home Secretary should, before the Debate concludes, amplify the assurance that he gave in introducing the Bill. He then reaffirmed the pledge which he made very solemnly a year ago, on behalf of the Prime Minister and on behalf of the Government, but he did not say anything as to the way in which it is proposed to carry this out. We are justified in passing this Bill only if we are sure that the interval before the close of this Parliament is to be rightly used to see that we get the very best method of representing the people, that anomalies that now exist will be reconsidered, and that everything that can be done will be done during that interval to secure the best possible Parliament to deal with the great problems of the future. If we do that, but only if we do it, I think this Measure will be justified. I beg the Home Secretary to be good enough to make clearer the Government's intention of carrying out the pledge that he has given. It has been suggested that a fact-finding commission might be set up. That might be one way. There may be various forms of inquiry which the Government could pursue. But it is important that it should be done even while the great measures which occupy the Government's time in connection with the war are carried out.
In the last war, when similar measures were taken, the opportunity was seized during the progress of the war to make


inquiries and to make an immense change in the electoral system. We did not wait until the conclusion of the war to take those measures. I would urge that now, as the hon. Member opposite has said, we ought to take this opportunity and not wait until the conclusion of the war before taking the steps that are so urgently needed. We have heard in the most eloquent language in past years from the Prime Minister his expression of faith in Parliament and of the need for making our representative institutions absolutely worthy of the great ideals of democracy and we have this opportunity now, in the coming months and, it may be in the coming years. We ought not to put it off to an unknown future. We ought to ask the Government, as we pass this Measure, to make it clear to the House and to the people that they intend to take up these inquiries now, in order that the Parliament that has to deal with the great problems of social reform and the great international problems which will await us when peace comes shall be the most representative Parliament possible, worthily interpreting the great democratic ideals which we are all united in desiring to maintain.

Mr. Denman: I should like to add, in a sentence, my support of the point made by the last speaker, because it really is impossible to attempt to deal with these big problems between the end of the war and the first election afterwards. There will not be time, and there will be so many other important subjects.

Mr. Maxton: The hon. Member says there will not be time, but is there not some suggestion to postpone the General Election for some three years after hostilities have ceased. The hon. Gentleman smiles, but I understand that that is so, and that he and others have agreed that there should be no General Election until after the cessation of hostilities or three years thereafter.

Mr. Denman: I am no party to any such agreement, if such an agreement exists; and, on the contrary, that seems to me to be entirely impracticable. I do not believe that it is possible to carry on with the existing Parliament for three years after the end of the war. But I did not rise to make that point primarily but

because I was glad to follow one of the few remaining hon. Members who share responsibility for Section 7 of the Parliament Act. There are not many of us left, and I think it is time that one of us said plainly that we made a mistake in passing Section 7. The ideal length of Parliament is not a subject that is appropriate for argument to-day, but I would remind the House that the Septennial Act served the country very well for 200 years. Some of the glorious moments of Parliament occurred during those 200 years, and its abolition was not because of some reforming zeal, and it was not the spirit in which the Chartists desired annual Parliaments; it was simply a concession to Conservative fears. They were afraid that the Parliament Act without some such limitation might be a dangerous weapon, and as a concession to those Conservative fears, the seven years was changed to five. I believe that instead of merely amending this Section to-day, we ought to be repealing it.
That is not a subject, as I said, for argument and debate to-day, but I want to place on record two propositions that I believe 30 years' experience of this Section justifies. The first is that the actual length of a Parliament is normally, and fairly effectively, governed by the facts of the day, with public opinion maintaining sufficient influence and control over Parliamentary events and sufficient authority over the House of Commons to prevent that body from an undue departure from the general will. The second proposition—and this is what really matters—is that in modern conditions it is becoming more and more important that democracy should be able to plan intelligently. One of the most serious diseases of democracy is the living from day to day and acting on policies of pure opportunism. There is increasing need for long-term planning, and the difficulties of that process are greatly magnified by having to anticipate elections every four years, say, instead of six years. Therefore, I desire to express a personal regret that on this occasion, after 30 years' experience of Section 7, instead of restoring the Septennial Act as an integral part of our Constitution, we are merely restoring it for the lifetime of our present Parliament.

Mr. Cecil Wilson: I would like to associate myself with what


was said by the hon. Member opposite and also by the hon. Member for the English Universities (Mr. Harvey) and others with regard to the necessity of our understanding a good deal more clearly the intention of the Government with regard to the future. I am certain that at the present time we cannot in the least foresee what the condition of affairs will be after the war. But we do know that there have been an enormous shifting of population and a great many other difficulties, and that a large proportion of those who will take part in the next election will know very little indeed of Parliamentary life and of what has been happening during these years as far as Parliament is concerned, and will know almost nothing of the difficulties which there have been in some elections which have taken place in the years more particularly since the last war. An immense responsibility rests upon us of considering the whole of these questions in the most careful manner, in order that, when the time comes, we may be able to present some Measure which has been thought out with the utmost care in order to meet all the various difficulties which we can foresee although we cannot think of those which may still appear. I earnestly hope that we shall hear something further from the Government as to the real position, and what is going to happen during the next few years.

Mr. McKie: I should not have risen to speak had it not been for the hon. Member above the Gangway who said, with regard to the constitutional point, that in his opinion we might be passing legislation which would do away with the provisions of the Septennial Act and thereby place no limit on the lifetime of the present assembly. I am not a lawyer, much less a constitutional lawyer, but as a private Member of this House—and as a Conservative Member— I view with great disfavour any possibility such as that. I listened closely to the speech made by the Home Secretary, and I thought he made it fairly clear that we were merely returning to the position under the Septennial Act. But a few Members seem to have doubts on that point; they think the draftsmanship of the Bill is a little loose and wish for further reassurances. Therefore, I hope very much that when the right hon. Gentleman or the Under-Secretary replies

he will make the point clear beyond any doubt.
I do not wish to go into other points, interesting though they were, which have been made regarding the necessity for setting up some kind of commission to go into questions of Parliamentary reform and redistribution of seats in general. I merely say, as the only Conservative Member who has taken part in the Debate (HON. MEMBERS: "NO") I am sorry—I beg the pardon of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Sir R. Blair). No man has greater right or cause than he to make a speech regarding a Measure such as this. He represents 209,000 electors in this House, and, if I may say so without flattering him unduly, I think he discharges his duties most admirably. I have been almost 10 years in this House—with the exception of 20 days—without an electoral contest (An HON. MEMBER: "Shame"). Somebody says "Shame," but, after all, there was no agreement. The 50,000 electors of my constituency, which is very large in area, did not see their way to oppose me at the last General Election. There was no kind of agreement whatsoever. The hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) said that this Parliament would surely have its own special place in history. Some of the longest Parliaments have not necessarily been the worst Parliaments. So, as a Member who has been without an electoral contest for so many years, I am sure the House will agree that I am entitled to feel somewhat apprehensive lest we should be doing away altogether with the provisions of the Septennial Act. We Conservatives are not supposed to be the party specially concerned—I think it is a quite wrong suggestion—with democracy or Parliamentary institutions as a whole.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Clifton Brown): Perhaps the hon. Member will get down to the Bill.

Mr. McKie: I thought I was endeavouring to deal with the Bill when I said in my opening remarks that I should not have risen at all had not an hon. Gentleman above the Gangway expressed fears lest we should do away with the provisions of the Septennial Act. I felt it my duty, too, to express the same fear. I thought the Home Secretary made it clear that the Bill does not do away with the


provisions of that Act. If conditions render it impossible to make a general appeal to the country I hope my right hon. Friend will make it plain that it will be necessary to present legislation of the type which will enable this present Parliament to be prolonged for only one more year.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Cuthbert Headlam: I would like an assurance from the Home Secretary, following the somewhat involved speeches which have been made recently, as to whether, if we pass the Bill to-day, it will or will not be necessary for the Government to come this time next year and ask for a similar Bill?

Mr. Silverman: Almost every speaker in the Debate has said that it is inevitable that some such Bill as this should be passed, and I do not dissent from that view. Almost every speaker, too, has said that the course we are adopting involves a number of disadvantages with regard to the postponement of a General Election, but what surprises me is that none has attempted to suggest any method by which, while a General Election may be postponed, the obvious and admitted dangers and disadvantages of prolongation might be remedied or minimised. I want to examine the question of what exactly it is we are doing and whether there are any ways in which the dangers that such a Measure, necessarily involves can be at any rate minimised. On the first question, I am bound to say that I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Southwark (Mr. Naylor) as to what is the effect of this Bill. We have had in the history of this country a Long Parliament, a Short Parliament and a Rump Parliament, and it seems to me that we are in great danger of having a perpetual, eternal or indefinite Parliament. Reference was made to the Long Parliament, and it was said that it did some useful things. In its early days it did, but it went on too long, until Cromwell said:
Gentleman, you have been too long here for any good you have been doing.
and the Parliament, which began with two Members holding Mr. Speaker down in his chair so that Parliament might continue to do its business, ended with Colonel Pride coming in with his troopers—

Mr. Pickthorn: The hon. Gentleman is misinformed.

Mr. Silverman: Perhaps I am wrong in saying it ended that way. It went on beyond that in another form. The Lord Protector, which was then the fashionable name for a dictator, pointing to the emblem of authority of the House—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This is not the time to go into the whole history of past Parliaments. The hon. Member must keep to the subject matter of the Bill.

Mr. Silverman: I apologise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I was dealing with an argument that had been made. I hope the "baulk" will long remain. I want to examine with some care what the Bill does. In terms, it provides that Section 7 of the Parliament Act, 1911, shall not apply to this Parliament. To see what this really does, one has to examine the matter from the beginning. The original Act of 1715 was a very short act, and it may be worth while for me to quote the whole of it:
Whereas in and by act of Parliament made in the sixth year of the reign of their late Majesties King William and Queen Mary (of ever blessed memory) intituled, An Act for the- frequent meeting and calling of parliaments: it was, among other things enacted, That from thenceforth no parliament whatsoever, that should at any time then after be called, assembled or held, should have any continuance longer than for three years only at the farthest, to be accounted from the day on which by the writ of summons the said parliament should be appointed to meet; and whereas it has been found by experience, that the said clause hath proved very grievous and burthensome, by occasioning much greater and more continued expenses in order to elections of members to serve in parliament, and more violent and lasting heats and animosities among the subjects of this realm, than were ever known before the said clause was enacted; and the said provision, if it should continue, may probably at this juncture, when a restless and Popish faction are designing and endeavouring to renew the rebellion within this Kingdom, and an invasion from abroad, be destructive to the peace and security of the Government—
those were the reasons, one of them, at any rate, still applying—
Be it enacted by the King's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same. That this present Parliament, and all parliaments that shall at any time hereafter be called, assembled or held, shall and may respectively have continuance for seven years, and no longer, to be accounted …


as before. The position at that point is plain. Whereas before Parliaments could last for three years and no longer, thereafter they could last for seven years and no longer, and the three-year Act was repealed by the House. There was a substitution of seven for three. Undoubtedly, this Act must have had the effect of repealing the custody provision of Triennial Act. It is important to make that point because, if it was true at that stage, it must be true at other stages. I come now to the Parliament Act, 1911, Section (7) of which states:
Five years shall be substituted for seven years as the time fixed for the maximum duration of Parliament under the Septennial Act, 1715.
It says no more than that. Two hon. Members who have spoken have confessed to a certain measure of responsibility for that Section. They have said that they were Members of the House at that time and that they agreed to it, although one of them now has doubts as to whether he ought to have done so or not. Let me say, in all humility, that the Section is, in any case, thoroughly badly drafted. The Act contains no Schedule, as is customary, showing what previous enactments, or what portions of previous enactments, are repealed by it. We are offered no assistance of that kind, and we are left to interpret the words as they stand. It seems to me that if the effect of the Septennial Act was to repeal the appropriate provisions of Triennial Act, then the effect of Section (7) of the Parliament Act, 1911, was to repeal the Septennial Act to the like extent. It states, in terms, that the seven-year period shall go therefrom and the five-year period shall be substituted for it.

Mr. H. Morrison: Has the hon. Member read it?

Mr. Silverman: I have read the whole of it. If my right hon. Friend thinks I have left out anything that is material, I should be grateful if he would point it out to me.

Mr. Garro Jones: On what ground does my hon. Friend assume that the Parliament Act, 1911, repeals the whole of the Septennial Act when, in point of fact, it repeals only one provision?

Mr. Silverman: The provision which it repeals is the only material provision in the Act. [Interruption.] I do not want

to argue on that line, because it does not seem to matter; either the whole Act was repealed, or the Act was amended so that thereafter no Parliament could last for longer than five years. In any case, the provision about Parliament lasting not longer than seven years was repealed. What would have happened in Committee of the House if the Septennial Act were being formally amended? The Question put from the Chair would not have been, "That five years be substituted for seven years." The Question put from the Chair, in the first place, would have been, "That the word 'seven' stand part of the Clause, "and only on that proposition being negatived would there have been a further proposition to insert" five." Therefore, the "five" could not have been inserted except by first removing "seven" from the Act. I say that the fair interpretation of Section (7) of the Parliament Act, 1911, was that it forever repealed every relevant portion of the Septennial Act and that thereafter no Parliament could last for longer than five years. What does the Bill now before us mean? It provides that Section (7) of the 1911 Act shall not apply to this Parliament. What does apply to this Parliament?

Mr. H. Morrison: The 1715 Act.

Mr. Silverman: That is the suggestion of the Government and they may be right, but I think not. I suggest that, for the reasons I have given, the 1715 Act has gone, and if it is to be re-enacted only the House can re-enact it, and if it is the Government's intention that it shall be re-enacted, there is nothing to prevent them from saying so in the Bill.

Mr. H. Morrison: The real point is whether the 1715 Act was repealed or not. Surely, that is a simple issue. If it has been repealed, then in some Act of Parliament it is stated that it has been repealed, and usually that is said, as the hon. Member will recognise, in a Schedule. The hon. Member has read Section (7) of the Parliament Act, 1911, which states:
Five years shall be substituted for seven years as the time fixed for the maximum duration of Parliament under the Septennial Act, 1715.
Clearly, that is an Amendment to the 1715 Act. It substitutes five years for seven years. I admit that thereby it makes nonsense of the Title of the Act,


but I cannot help that, and I think it is not material legally. Clearly, that is an Amendment of the Act and it leaves the Act formally on the Statute Book. If now we repeal the effect of Section 7 of the Parliament Act, 19111, we leave in force the 1715 Act. Therefore, the repeal of the provisions of the Parliament Act, 1911, automatically takes us back to the 1715 Act.

Mr. Silverman: I suggest that my right hon. Friend's argument can be right only if we are to assume that the 1911 Act did not amend the 1715 Act, but left it in a kind of limbo of suspended animation waiting to come into operation as before at any time when any subsequent Amendment of it were repealed. I suggest that there is no machinery now and that there was no machinery then in the Standing Orders of this House to keep alive on the Statute Book a provision of an Act which was removed for the purpose of amending it.

Captain Godfrey Nicholson: Surely the main purpose of both the Triennial Act and the Septennial Act was not in reference to the actual term of years, but that the provisions to ensure that Parliament should be automatically called without regard to the Crown were laid down? Surely that substantial provision must remain in operation whether the term of years is changed or not?

Mr. Silverman: Unfortunately, the words of the 1715 Act are exactly to the contrary. It was for that reason that I read the whole of the recital of the Act instead of being content with the operative Clause which comes at the end. It had nothing to do with the calling of Parliament.

Captain Nicholson: The Triennial Act?

Mr. Silverman: That may be so, but the 1715 Act was passed purely to lengthen the life of Parliament to seven years and to provide that Parliament should not last longer.

Captain Nicholson: That is so. The Septennial Act may be regarded as an amendment to the Triennial Act, and the Triennial Act laid down how Parliament should be summoned. Therefore, this is an amendment to the last amending Act.

Mr. Silverman: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to point out that in the

last two lines the Septennial Act preserves the right of the Crown, constitutionally exercised, to dissolve Parliament, and the 1911 Act, in Section 6, provides that nothing in this Act shall diminish or qualify the existing rights or privileges of the House of Commons. There is no doubt that if the House were dissolved by the effluxion of time, or by constitutional act of the Crown, Parliament would have the right to be re-elected under the common law. I do not think that is in doubt at all.

Captain Nicholson: The important part is that the conditions of the issue of a new Writ are laid down in the Triennial Act. There is an automatic issue of a new Writ, whether the Crown wishes it or not.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I suggest if the hon. and gallant Member has many more interruptions that he should endeavour to make them in a speech.

Mr. Silverman: I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for his remarks. He is quite right, but I do not wish to deal with the Triennial Act, because I am dealing with the 1715 Act, which is concerned purely with the lengthening of the life of Parliament. What I am saying is that, unless it can be shown by some rule of this House, by some Standing Order, or by some accepted practice you can take "seven" out of the 1715 Act and substitute "five" and still keep the seven in all its pristine efficiency until some such Act as this is passed, then the interprepation of this Bill which has been contended for by my hon Friend behind me must be right. However, I think enough has been said on the subject to satisfy the House that this is altogether too important a matter to be dealt with in this way. If the Clause is reasonably capable of the sort of construction we are contending for, then it ought to be redrafted. It is a simple thing to do. It would be quite easy to amend Clause 1 of the Bill by the sort of language used in the Local Elections Bill— although I am not seeking to draft the Amendment now—providing that at the end of the seven years Parliament shall come to an end unless Parliament otherwise determines. I suggest it is worth while doing this if only for the purpose of removing all doubt. No one knows how long this war will continue. We all hope that we may get victory in the near future, but we are all prepared to face


the possibility that victory may be postponed for some time. In that case all sorts of questions would arise after this Bill had been passed.
We must not burke the fact that this House has become unrepresentative of the country. Parliament will become progressively more unrepresentative of the country with every such Act as this, and with every year which passes. It would not be in Order to go into this matter in detail, but it is well known that the circumstances under which this Parliament was elected in 1935 were very different from the circumstances which exist to-day. The issues which then filled the platforms, the papers, and the posters are dead, and the advice tendered by one party or another, speculative as it could only be, is no longer speculative now. The period towards which we were looking, and the dangers which we were envisaging, are matters of the past. I do not dispute that, if a General Election were held today, and if it were confined purely to the question of the successful prosecution of this war, there would not be two opinions in the country. But there would be more than two opinions about other matters—about the future social and economic organisation of this country and Europe and about what kind of future the world is to look forward to. I am not one of those who believe that these questions can be safely left. They have to be prepared now, and if there is a conflict of opinion it must be resolved now so that the preparations can be made.
I do not know whether the Government have considered how the progressively unrepresentative character of Parliament might be diminished. The system of elections for local authorities provides machinery whereby elections can be held without bringing executive government to an end. It is provided that one out of every three of the members of a local authority shall offer himself for re-election, so that effective local government can still be exercised—two-thirds of the members can exercise the authority which has been entrusted to them while one-third of the seats are left vacant for elections to be held. I recognise that there are a good many difficulties, perhaps insuperable, but I ask in all seriousness if the Government have considered whether such a method might be applied to Parliament

so that, if the war is to go on for many years, and a General Election must be postponed for many years, there should still be a method of testing year by year the opinion among the electorate, or at any rate a section of the constituencies. That would be a method which would enable the House not to get quite so rapidly unrepresentative as if you had no elections at all. My hon. Friend on the Front Bench said there had been in the life-time of this Parliament 200 changes. Yes, there have, most of them since the war, so that one-third of the House has changed, but the balance of parties remains exactly as it was before. We do not know, there are no means of knowing, whether the maintenance of the same balance of parties corresponds to a maintenance of the same balance of opinion in the country, but such a method as I am suggesting might enable us to find out.

Mr. Maxton: I was interested in the hon. Member's suggestion—my own mind has been running along that line—but is not the fact that there has been no change in the proportions of the House due to something entirely different from legislation? Does it not result from the agreement of parties not to fight one another?

Mr. Silverman: If there is no difference between parties, and I think there is none on the important question of pursuing the war to a successful conclusion, no dispute about that can arise, but there is nothing to prevent other questions on which parties are in violent conflict being debated at elections as opportunity offers. That, of course, is something that the House cannot control and cannot debate. It is a matter of agreement between parties. If there was no such agreement, if there was a machinery whereby a portion of the House should be elected periodically, at any rate some part of the great dangers that we envisage might be diminished. I urge the Government to consider whether there might not be some way of diminishing the difficulties that everyone recognises in measures of this kind. Most urgently of all I say we ought not to be content to allow the Bill to pass in its present form while so many of us think there is such good reason for doubting whether in fact the Bill does not do far more than the Government have claimed for it.

Mr. Mander: It is a very serious thing, as we all realise, for the House to take upon itself the responsibility of doing what the electors have not consented to, and that is to extend the period of Parliament, but under present circumstances I think it is generally agreed that that is the wisest course to take. All the same, many suggestions have been made which seem to be worthy of study and inquiry. Many Members are interested in a question which really does not arise to-day but which, no doubt, the Government will consider, coming out of the Debate, and that is the possibility of setting up some suitable machinery for investigating and probing all these different proposals. In the course of the discussion some reference has been made to future events, and how long Parliament can go on even after the termination of the war. The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) has suggested that there is in existence some agreement by which Parliament should go on for three years after the end of the war. As far as I know, there is no foundation whatever for such a fantastic proposal.

Mr. Maxton: Perhaps when I said "agreement" I was going a little too far, but, if the proposal is fantastic, it was certainly made by a very responsible Minister.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It does not come within the terms of the Bill, which extends the life of Parliament for only one year.

Mr. Mander: I quite appreciate that it is not a matter that can be developed at any length, but at the same time I have no doubt that there are Members who would like to see Parliament extended indefinitely without any necessity to go back to the electors. There is a great difference between two suggestions. One is a prolonged extension of the life of this Parliament, and the other is a prolonged extension of the life of this Government, or of an all-party Government, and the two are not necessarily dependent on each other at all. It seems to me that, while Parliament will certainly have to be dissolved at the first convenient opportunity after the war, even if it took place during the next twelve months as the result of victory, it is quite reasonable to assume

that it might be greatly in the public interest to continue for a period the all-party type of Government which we have in office at present during the difficult reconstruction period which would then come. At such a General Election every party would be free to put up candidates in every constituency, but the one test would be, which of the three or more candidates before you is the most likely to carry into effect, to the satisfaction of the electors, the great broad outline of the National Government's programme? It seems to me that a perfectly practicable way in which to do it would be to have in existence a Government on the present lines and have your General Election at the earliest possible moment in accordance with our constitutional procedure. That is what various persons may have had in mind in talking about this question.

Mr. Maxton: Is not that exactly the same as was done in the last post-war election, and as is done now in Germany when they have an election, that the Government of the day, composed of diverse elements, go to the country and say, "For the National Government or against?"? That is the only issue that you put to the electors.

Mr. Mander: My hon. Friend has not quite understood the point. Suppose there were in a particular constituency as candidates my hon. Friend himself, my hon. Friends the Members for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman), Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) and Penrith (Lieut.-Colonel Dower), and perhaps myself as representing different points of view—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This does not seem to be the occasion on which to discuss the details of electoral reform.

Mr. Mander: I appreciate that, but I was replying to what my hon. Friend said. Perhaps I may be allowed to finish the sentence. The one issue before the electors on such an occasion would be which of the candidates would be most likely to their satisfaction to carry out the programme of the National Government?

Mr. Pickthorn: I want to mention two points. I am sure that one is in Order, but you will stop me, Sir, if the other it not. The major point that has been discussed when I have been present is whether the Bill gives the


Government another year's lease or gives the Government a freehold. I cannot believe that that point was not explained when the Bill was presented to the House, but if there is any doubt about it, I hope that we shall have a categorical assurance from the Front Bench that there is no doubt about it in the minds of the Home Office or of His Majesty's legal advisers. The second point about which I am more dubious is, if we are giving the Government a longer lease than one year, and, I think, even if we are not, has not the moment arrived when we ought to have some assurance that there will soon be consideration of the problem of the completely disfranchised constituencies? There are some constituencies whose Members are not here, some because they are abroad, some because of medical reasons and some because of other reasons.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is going into the question of electoral reform, and that is outside the scope of this Bill.

Mr. Pickthorn: I was not meaning to go into the question of electoral reform. In normal times a constituency knows that there will be a General Election in three, four, five or seven years, and if it is foolish enough to choose a bad man or one who is likely to neglect it, it has to suffer the penalty for that period. Now, how-over, the constituency is having to suffer the penalty much more than it could have known it would have to at the time of the election. I suggest, therefore, that if we are giving the Government another year under the Bill, and a fortiori if we are giving them an indefinite number of years, we ought to have an assurance that there will be consideration of the question whether under proper safeguards constituencies which are not effectively represented might not be able to seek for some redress.

Mr. Maxton: Am I wrong in believing that the subject matter which the hon. Member has raised is under the consideration of a Select Committee of the House?

Mr. Pickthorn: I am afraid that it is not for me to answer that point.

Mr. H. Morrison: I can only speak again by leave of the House, but I think that in view of the nature of the matters

raised the House will probably expect me to deal with them personally. The principal point raised is whether the Bill will make this Parliament legally endless or whether it continues this Parliament for only another year. There are other points, on which I must exercise great care, which have been raised from the Liberal Benches and by my hon. Friend the Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones). Perhaps I may with some care and discretion deal with those limited points first. There have been indications, particularly from the Liberal Benches, that they would like some action to be taken about some matters of machinery and fact that will have to be considered before a General Election. These matters have some bearing on this Bill, because the longer this Parliament lasts the longer the register is out of existence. They raise higher issues of what is known as electoral reform, which Mr. Deputy-Speaker has indicated cannot be discussed within this Bill. In any case, it is felt that it would not be wise to raise these matters, which are of high policy and of considerable controversy.
On that point I made a statement to the House last year which I have reaffirmed on this occasion. The continuation of this Parliament, first for one year beyond its legal term and then for another—and for all we know there may be another extension—certainly raises some very difficult issues in connection with the administrative preparations for a General Election when it comes. They are not matters which raise or involve big or controversial isues of policy. There is, however, the problem of re-distribution, which was difficult before and is probably still more difficult now when the case for it is stronger. There are matters of registration which will present us with some great difficulties after this war as compared with the last war in preparation for the renewal of the mandate of the House when the time comes. It has been suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for North Aberdeen, and emphasised by hon. Members in other quarters of the House, including my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) that there is a case for a factual examination of the administrative and technical problems that arise out of the continuation of this Parliament and the particular circumstances of the war.
I cannot give a firm undertaking, but I think that a prima facie case has been made for an investigation. I am not thinking of a Royal Commission or anything elaborate, for it is largely a matter of fact and of what is adminstratively practicable, but I will consider whether some sort of investigation or inquiry is possible into all these practical problems which are inevitably bound up with the machinery of a general election when it takes place.

Mr. Mander: My right hon. Friend said that there were certain points which were controversial and into which it was not desirable to go now. Those points, however, were gone into during the last war, and will he be good enough to consider the possibility of including them also?

Mr. Morrison: The matters about which I am thinking do not involve any question of policy, but questions of machinery and administration in connection with redistribution and registration, which do not involve any element of high policy. My statement does not mean, however, that those questions cannot be considered at the proper time. Perhaps it would be convenient if I read the actual words which I used last year on this point, which, I think, cover in principle the aspect which has been raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green and my hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander):
An appeal to the electorate must always remain the final constitutional method of resolving grave issues of national policy. No one can foresee what circumstances will arise, but in normal conditions it will be the desire of His Majesty's Government, when a General Election again becomes practicable, to give sufficient notice for the creation of a new register, and this interval would also afford an opportunity for the House to consider, if it so desired, questions connected with changes of our electoral system."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd October, 1940; col. 1060, Vol. 365.]
That statement I am authorised to reaffirm on the part of the Government.

Sir P. Harris: I should like to have one point made clear. That statement says if "the House" so desire. Obviously a matter of this kind would be one for the Government, which would have to take the initiative. It would be difficult to put the whole responsibility on the House of Commons. Does the right hon. Gentle-

man suggest that the House of Commons should pass a Resolution and the Government acquiesce?

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir, I am only suggesting that there will be an opportunity for the House to discuss these matters, and in discussing them it would no doubt discuss what it wishes to be done, how it would wish the matter to be investigated, and so on, and on that -occasion it would be for the Government to give such guidance as it felt would be desirable. The situation is materially different from what it was in 1916, because, as will be rememBèred, many of the problems that were then raised were, in fact, as the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green rather boasted, connected with the great changes which were embodied in the Act of 1918, so that the field now is rather more limited than it was. I now come to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Southwark (Mr. Naylor) who, I am bound to say, was rather a "doubting Thomas" about the validity of this Bill, whether it really postponed the election of a new Parliament for a year or whether it kept Parliament in being for all time. His argument was reinforced by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) who read the whole Act of 1715. I congratulate him on being able to read this rather small italic type, with its annoying "s's" printed as though they were "f's," making it all the more difficult to recite. I cannot, on the face of it, see that there is any legal doubt as to the meaning of this Bill. I speak with all reserve and hesitation, because I am not a lawyer and I am not a Law Officer of the Crown. I wish to apologise for the absence of my right hon. and learned Friends the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General. One has public business which he could not possibly avoid, and the other is indisposed, and I know they would wish me to express their regret that they are not here to give more authoritative advice than I can pretend to give on this legal point.

Mr. Maxton: There are in addition two Scottish Law Officers. I do not wish to use the word "discourteous," but surely we are a bit casual if the Government cannot produce one out of four responsible Law Officers, seeing that this discussion has been going on for two or three hours.

Mr. Pickthorn: Surely there could not be a more fundamental legal question than this?

Mr. Morrison: I hope my hon. Friend will not "go off the deep end," if I may say so. The House is not losing the Bill to-day. There is a Committee stage. I hope my hon. Friend will not be indignant.

Mr. Pickthorn: I am not in the least indignant.

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Member sounded as if he were, but if he was not, I accept his assurance that he was in a state of complete calm. As I say, the House is not losing the Bill to-day. This is only the Second Reading, there is the Committee stage to come, and this is a point on which it would clearly be for the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General to advise the House. I have explained, with their apologies, why they cannot be here. In any case I do not think there is any need for us to work ourselves up into a state of mystification. The issue is perfectly simple. I know that from time to time all of us like to work ourselves up into a state of real doubt when none exists and I think there has been a little of this habit to-day.

Mr. Gallacher: You are very good at it.

Mr. Morrison: As I have said, my hon. Friend has read the whole text of the Act of 1715, which altered the Triennial Act so that Parliament should last seven years instead of three. That Act remained on the Statute Book until the Parliament Act, 1911, in Section 7 made a new provision. I cannot for the life of me see any doubt in its meaning. It must be rememBèred that the Parliament Act, 1911, was not a Bill which went through Parliament as easily as this one. There was a great deal of excitement about it, a good deal of heat, and I am not sure that things were not thrown about.

Mr. Silverman: I can remember the occasion, and while that is true is it not also true that all that heat and controversy were not about this portion of the Act at all but about the rest of the provisions of the Act; and may it not well have been that this Section slipped through unexamined and unnoticed by reason of that controversy?

Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend says that he remembers the occasion. I should hardly have thought he was old enough to remember it. I am, though I was very young at the time. But my hon. Friend need not have any doubt as to what Parliament did with a Bill of this kind in those days. Every line was examined, if not every word; every point of punctuation was considered. There was no question of whether a Clause was controversial or not. There was some controversy, I believe, about this particular provision. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) has recalled an echo of that controversy whether the change was in fact wise. In those days whether there was any controversy about a particular provision or not, there was sure to be a row about it, because it would drag out the time. It was a hotly contested Bill, resisted at every line and no Section was included which had not been carefully examined. Section 7 of that Act says:
Five years shall be substituted for seven years as the time fixed for the maximum duration of Parliament under the Septennial Act, 1715.
I will put to the Law Officers and to the Parliamentary draftsman the points raised by my hon. Friends, but it is abundantly clear to me that when an Act of Parliament says that five years shall be substituted for seven years in a previous Act of Parliament that means a specific amendment of the previous Act of Parliament and not the repeal of that previous Act. If it had meant that the Act of Parliament was to be repealed it would have said that the Act was repealed, or that a particular section was repealed, and that repeal is usually contained in the Schedule to the Bill. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne rather implied that the very eloquent and denunciatory Preamble to the Act of 1715 had a bearing on the matter, but I rather doubt it, because that Preamble sets forth the reasons for the Act and has not positive legislative effect. This is a case where there is not a repeal of the Act of 1715 but a specific amendment of it.

Mr. Silverman: I think we all agree that the whole Act was not repealed, but was not the Section limiting the life of Parliament to seven years repealed and a new Clause introduced limiting the life of


Parliament to five years? How can you substitute five for seven unless you first repeal the seven?

Mr. Morrison: There was only one Clause. There is an italic introduction, where all this denunciation of previous legislation occurs, and then it goes straight on without a pause and without a new Section or new Sub-section or anything, to say:
Be it enacted, by the King's most Excellent Majesty,
and so on. There is no provision in the Act of 1911 for the repeal of any Section of the Act of 1715. There was only one Section repealed, anyway. Incidentally, it was a remarkable illustration of the one-Clause Act, which we are always seeking. I think I can say with every confidence that the provision in the Act of 1911 is an amendment of the Act of 1715. That being so, we are now providing that Section 7 of the Act of 1911 shall be, not repealed—I was wrong if I said that earlier on—but shall not apply to the present Parliament. We are automatically going back to this old Act of 1715 under which the seven-year limit applies. So far as I can see, if we have to do this again next year, we shall have to amend the Act of 1715 and make it eight years, instead of the seven years therein provided. I have dealt with the points to my own complete and conclusive satisfaction, at any rate. I do not think there is any doubt—

Sir C. Headlam: "If we have to go back to this point next year," said the right hon.. Gentleman; I want to make it clear that the Government must come back to this point next year. If that old Act still applies, you will have to come back to it next year.

Mr. Morrison: There is another contingency. The Bill has been drafted on the assumption that we shall have to continue Parliament beyond this further year, and that we shall go back—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"]—Certainly. That is the assumption of the Bill. My argument has been directed to showing that that must be so, under the provisions of the Bill. If the war finished the week after next, with a great British victory, it might not be necessary to go back to that Act. My hon. Friend is always ingenious in his arguments, even when they are not legal,

and he is still more ingenious when they are legal. I am not a lawyer, but I think I have effectively answered him. Nevertheless, I will consult the Law Officers of the Crown in order that I may not wake up in the night and feel that any doubt remains. I give the House an assurance that the matter will also be dealt with upon the Committee stage by a Law Officer of the Crown.
The other points were all covered in the two big aspects of the Bill with which I have dealt. The House of Commons naturally feels that this is not the sort of thing to do. It has freely recognised that, and so have His Majesty's Government, but the House of Commons comes to the conclusion that this is the only thing we can do. We must have this further postponement, but the House of Commons, nevertheless, stands up in a white sheet, rather ashamed of itself for committing what it realises to be the constitutional irregularity, if not the crime, of daring, being elected for five years, to take legislative power to extend its period of office for one year and then for another year. Having castigated ourselves thoroughly, but having come to the conclusion that there is no other course for us to take, I hope that hon. Members will now give us the Second Reading of the Bill and the other stages of it as soon as possible.

Mr. Silverman: Was the Bill in its present form submitted for the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, or does the right hon. Gentleman now propose to take that step for the first time?

Mr. Morrison: All these Bills go through a procedure, during which Law Officers' advice is taken. Before a Bill gets to this House it goes through many stages of consideration, and my hon. Friend can be sure that his point is fully met.

Mr. Garro Jones: Does not the name of the Attorney-General appear on the back of the Bill, and is it not customary in drafting a Bill to have the assent of the Law Officers?

Mr. Morrison: I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend for his remarks. It seems conclusive.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time", put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for the next Sitting Day.— [Mr. Whiteley.]

Orders of the Day — LOCAL ELECTIONS AND REGISTER OF ELECTORS (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) (No. 2) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The purpose of the Bill is to continue for another year the Act of the same Title which was passed in 1939 and which was amended by an Act of similar Title in 1940. The purpose of the legislation of 1939 was to postpone local elections and to continue existing members of local authorities in office. Casual vacancies upon councils were to be filled, not by election but by co-option. The Act of 1939 further suspended all steps for the preparation of a register of electors and of jurors' books. It moreover prohibited any alteration of the area or constitution of local authorities. That Measure was opposed by my hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) and by representatives of the Independent Labour party, but on a Division it was carried by a Vote, Ayes 220, Noes 0. Last year, the continuing legislation was carried without a Division. My hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton, who had shown considerable critical spirit in regard to the legislation in the previous year, said he appreciated that the circumstances of the moment justified the Measure much more than when the original Act was introduced. I am hopeful that, on this occasion, we shall have the active support of my hon. Friend.
The Bill is brought before the House in consequence of a pledge given by the Lord President of the Council when introducing the Measure in 1939. It has not been included in the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Act because my right hon. Friend then gave the undertaking that the House would be given opportunities of keeping this matter under review. I will not repeat on this occasion the arguments in favour of the postponement of local elections which were adduced in 1939 and 1940, except to say that, as my right hon. Friend said on the Bill we have just dealt with, the register will be

even more out of date to-day than it was a year ago, the population is dispersed to a greater extent than it was 12 months ago, and it is obviously not desirable to fan the fires of party controversy at the present time.
Some minor Amendments in the previous legislation are contemplated by the Bill, and I will very briefly explain them to the House. The Amendment to Section 4 deals with the position in the City of London. The principal Act applied to the City of London except as regards the election of aldermen which, in the City of London, is rather peculiar. In the first place aldermen hold their positions, and are elected, for life. They are elected, not by the Common Council, but by the voters in the local government area. It is one of the qualifications for being a candidate for the Common Council—and, of course, members may have to be co-opted to the Common Council as to other local government bodies—not only that the candidate shall be on the register of local government electors, but that he shall be in actual occupation of premises in the City. Owing to the destruction wrought in the City that occupational qualification, in some wards at any rate, may be one which is very difficult if not impossible to fulfil, and, therefore, the first Amendment we propose to Section 4 is to abolish the occupation of premises as a qualification for being elected to fill a vacancy on the Common Council.
As regards the election of aldermen also, it is a qualification that a candidate must be in actual occupation of premises in the City, in addition to being on the Parliamentary register; we therefore propose that the occupational qualification for election as alderman shall also be temporarily abolished. Lists are prepared every year in the City of those who are qualified to vote at an election of aldermen. It is proposed that those lists which are now in force shall continue to be the lists for voters so long as this Bill is in force; that is to say, that new lists of voters at the aldermanic elections shall not be compiled at the present time.
There are two other smaller matters regarding the application of the principal Act to Scotland. The first one provides that members of local authorities who have been elected to the office of bailie or appointed to the office of judge of police shall not remain in office for more


than the normal period of three years, which would be the period during which they would hold those offices under peacetime conditions. The second Amendment to Section 8, which deals with the application of the principal Act to Scotland, provides that burgh representatives on county councils shall continue to be elected. These representatives are elected, I understand, by the burgh councils, and there is no reason why the stop on local elections should apply to them. After the passing of this Bill new elections will be held in the burghs to elect new representatives on the county councils.
I think I have said enough at this stage to explain the Amendments to the House, but if any hon. Member requires further elucidation, it could be given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland either at the conclusion of the Debate or during the Committee stage.

Mr. McKinlay (Dumbartonshire): I should like to have one or two points in the Amendments relating to Scotland elucidated, while at the same time congratulating the Scottish Office for having given effect to what was the desire of local authorities in Scotland. As I understand the position under the original Act, there was nothing to prevent a bailie, once elected, from staying a bailie for the duration of the war. I must thank the Secretary of State for relieving me of an appointment which, had I so willed, I could have held until the war is finished. I think it is only right that the normal internal arrangements of local authorities should operate, even supposing that local government elections are suspended, but I am somewhat disturbed at the use of the word "bailie." I know that in appointments under the local authorities the term "bailie" is used, but one of its peculiar aspects is that when a man becomes a bailie he is always spoken of afterwards, in all his activities, as a magistrate. I want to know if there is any different treatment for a person who can be designated as a magistrate as compared with a person who is known as a common or garden, everyday bailie.
The Secretary of State knows that in Scotland we say, "Once a bailie, aye a bailie," but the point I have in mind is whether, in a certain town in Scotland, the chief magistrate is in a different posi-

tion. In one town I know it has been suggested that, irrespective of the desire of the local authority, the chief magistrate will be superimposed upon the local authority by some mysterious method known only to the Government. I would like to ask the Secretary of State if he could give us an authoritative statement that no member of the Government, so far as he is aware, has ever made any suggestion that such will be the case. Quite frankly, those in authority must always remember that, while they may try out something like this, the local authority always controls the purse strings; if there is any intention of superimposing the chief magistrate in the town which I have in mind, I only want to give the warning that those who control the purse strings will cut off the supplies. I may be stressing too much what has been common talk in the West of Scotland for a very considerable time, but I would like the Secretary of State, in replying, to give us an assurance that that is not the intention of the Government, and that no member of the Government had been authorised at any time to make any such suggestion.
There is one other point I should like just to touch upon. I regret that many local authorities in Scotland, while carrying out the strict letter of the Act, are apparently violating the spirit intended. Whether you like it or not politics have entered local government to stay. I admit there were no politics in local government so long as the Labour party were in a hopeless minority, but when Labour obtained majorities in many cases, politics in local government apparently became a crime. But one or two local authorities have seen fit, when vacancies have occurred affecting the Labour party, by death or otherwise, to say quite innocently, "We never recognised politics in local government," and proceeded to elect an anti-Labour representative to that local authority. In one instance, I believe, the Provostship of the burgh was at stake, and by the opportunity presented of filling a vacancy in what had been a Labour seat, the local authority secured a majority of one and put their own candidate into that distinguished office.
I only wish to give this warning. There are some authorities on which we have a very considerable majority, and if need


be we can retaliate. I would like the Secretary of State to make an appeal to authorities throughout the country that, when vacancies occur, they should, as far as is reasonably practicable, be filled by representatives of the nominating bodies who were responsible for the nomination of the departed member. Apart from that, I do not think I should desire to detain the House by going any further into the matter than to thank the Secretary of State for introducing the Amendments which clarify the position and prevent a continued or continuous staying in office of persons appointed at the outbreak of war.

Mr. George Griffiths: I wish to ask the Under-Secretary a question on Clause 1. He did not deal with it. It states that the Measure—
shall continue in force until the thirty-first Jay of December, nineteen hundred and forty-two.
But local urban district council elections are not contested in December; they are contested either in the last week in March or the first week in April. So that if this Bill goes through and the elections of local borough councils take place in November, how are the urban district councils going to have their elections in December, for it is stated that the Bill shall not go further than December? I rise only to ask the Under-Secretary if he will make that perfectly clear, because if this Bill passes and you do not come back again to the House on this matter before 12 months next March or April, the urban district councils cannot prolong the councils. They would become defunct. There would be no urban district councils at all. I hope that the Minister if he sees the point of view I am putting, will rectify that matter in Clause 1.

Mr. McLean Watson: There is one point in the Under-Secretary's statement on which I would like to have a word. I hope the Secretary of State will make it clear what is meant by the election of representatives to the county councils. I quite agree with what has been said with regard to the elections of bailies, and that they should not be continued in their office more than the three years for which they were elected. In making his statement on Second Reading the Under-Secretary said that elections of burgh representatives to the county councils would be held. What actually hap-

pens is that under the Local Government Act, 1929, large burghs in Scotland have representatives on the county council for education purposes only. The representatives from the small burghs have a much larger interest in the county councils. They have their representation on the county councils. The election of representatives from the burghs to the county councils takes place within the burgh council itself. It is the burgh council which selects its representatives to the county councils, and I hope that no impression will go abroad in Scotland, from what the Under-Secretary said, that there was to be anything in the nature of local elections for the election of representatives to the county council. All that happens is that the small burghs, having a considerable interest now in county council affairs, elect their representatives from time to time. I rise only to make that point clear, because, from what the Under-Secretary stated, the impression might go abroad that local electors were entitled to take part in elections to county councils, whereas it is the burgh councils that elect to the county councils their representatives to look after their interests there.

Mr. Mander: I am afraid that the opposition which I brought forward to this Measure previously I shall continue to-day It seems to me that at a time when Parliamentary by-elections are taking place frequently, it is altogether indefensible that local government electors should have no control at all of local government. On the last occasion I said that conditions were more difficult. The Battle of Britain was going on. We realise to-day that, from that point of view, conditions are more favourable, for the time being at any rate, for holding elections. We are in an extraordinary position, and quite an illogical position. The only reason why this Act was passed, as far as I can gather, is because it was done during the last war. A good many things were done then which are not applicable to-day but which are still being done. There are two ways of looking at this. You might say it is desirable to carry on these elections in the ordinary way every three years. You might say, alternatively, that the fair thing would be to take a complete analogy with what is done in the case of Parliamentary by-elections


and say that any casual elections there might be should have the opportunity of being contested just as in the case of Parliament. When you put it on these grounds, it seems to me that there is no logical answer whatever. Every year I ask my hon. Friend to state what the difference is between Parliamentary elections and local government elections, and why you cannot have a contested local government election. He has never been able to put forward the slightest reason, because a reason does not exist.
I quite agree, however, that if you are to give local authorities the right to have contested elections, you would have to give the Government power, by Order in Council, to lay down that certain areas— Plymouth, or places of that kind—should be exempted, for reasons which we all understand. But there are many places throughout the country where it is just as practicable to hold a local government by-election as it is to hold a Parliamentary by-election. In most cases they would be unopposed and would go through automatically under the party truce, just as in most cases they do in Parliamentary by-elections. At the same time, surely it is reasonable to give local electors an opportunity of expressing their strong feelings from time to time on local administration. There may be some question connected with A.R.P. or the A.F.S.—I know it is mainly controlled from the centre, but there is local responsibility— to questions of food, questions of evacuation, how billeting is being dealt with locally, questions of transport, and questions of school, education, about which I know there has been very strong feeling in certain cases. Why should not the electors be given, at any rate, the opportunity of an occasional by-election to say what they think of those who are controlling them, and, by means of a vote, of putting somebody on to a local council who represents a point of view which has not been represented there before?
It is a thoroughly healthy thing, where you can do it, to give an opportunity for elections to take place. No doubt, it is not so agreeable to the councillors, who otherwise go on automatically, as it is to the electors; but the electors are the people who matter, and they should be considered wherever possible. It is true that the Register is tending to get stale,

and that if the war went on for 50 years all the electors would be well over 70. But the question of that staleness applies in exactly the same way to, Parliamentary by-elections. I ask my right hon. Friend, before he comes to the House again with such a Measure, to consider seriously whether it is not possible to allow some democratic rights to local government electors in this country. I am sure that that is the wise and sound thing to do, and I believe that it would be consistent with the national interest to give local government electors an opportunity of expressing their opinions in the modest way I suggest.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): There is, I think, general consent to the essential purposes of this Bill. With respect to the first point put by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay), I can assure him of two things. The first is that by Section 57 of the Town Councils (Scotland) Act, 1900, it is provided that a magistrate other than the provost of a burgh shall be called a bailie. This Amendment deals with the tenure of office of bailies and police judges elected or appointed after the Act of 1939 came into operation.

Mr. McKinlay: It does not interfere with the question of magistrates?

Mr. Johnston: In no way whatever. The second point my hon. Friend made was this. Had any indication been given, he asked, by any member of the Government to the effect that a. provost in any area should be continued? The answer is "No." An hon Member asked a question about duration. He asked whether legislation would be necessary if this Measure required further prolongation. The answer is that further legislation will be necessary before the end of 1942 should this Government, or any other Government, be compelled to ask Parliament to prolong the present councils for any further period. As for the point put by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), that really raises the essential principle in this Bill. Should there or should there not be any occasion on which local elections should take place? There are considerable areas of Scotland which are now what is called protected areas.

Mr. G. Griffiths: If the date of, say, the first Saturday in April were inserted instead of 31st December there would be no necessity to bring in a Bill covering urban district council elections. They would be covered by Clause 1.

Mr. Johnston: Further legislation would be necessary to postpone elections in 1943.

Mr. Griffiths: Do you expect it to go on after 31st December?

Mr. Johnston: Further legislation would be necessary for whatever period of extension—if any—is required. The point I was putting in reply to the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton, is that there are areas where, for a variety of reasons, local government elections cannot be held.

Mr. Mander: Are not Parliamentary by-elections held in those areas?

Mr. Johnston: Yes and no. By consent, there are parts of those areas where no elections are taking place. Whether the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State for Scotland should be given power to delimit areas where no local government elections should take place, is a very big question. All I can say is that the point made by the hon. Member will be considered before another such Bill is brought in. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Watson) can be simply met. There is no provision in this Bill for elections in the ordinary sense to county councils—possibly a clearer word would have been "selection" and not "election."

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for the next Sitting Day.— [Mr. Whiteley.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — MILITARY SERVICE (OXFORD GROUP).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Whiteley.]

Mr. Mathers: I have the responsibility of raising a matter with the

Minister of Labour, because of certain answers that he gave to Questions on nth September. The right hon. Gentleman is here to-day. He will be here, we understand, to-morrow, dealing with big issues. To-day, he is not dealing with the same issues as those with which he will be dealing to-morrow. To-morrow, we expect he will be asking for increased manpower, and dealing with questions of that kind. We understand him to be taking a different line to-day. By the attitude that he is adopting towards an important body in this country, he is saying that he does not wish for the agency of that body to provide the man-power with which they have already provided him. He would have been poorer in man-power, his difficulties would have been greater in the industrial sphere, had it not been for the religious challenge, the spiritual challenge, of the members of the Oxford Group.
The question that is raised to-day is one of principle. There is no question of men seeking to evade their duty as citizens, seeking to evade their obligations. There is no question of pleading for conscientious objectors to military service. I might say that I thought it was rather unwarranted of the right hon. Gentleman to make a suggestion that those for whom I am appealing to-day might take that way of dealing with the difficulty in which he had placed them by changes made in the Schedule of Reserved Occupations. No charge of that kind of shirking duty, of evading military service has to any extent been raised in the controversy that has waged around this matter since the right hon. Gentleman made his replies on nth September. Indeed, I find from every section of His Majesty's Fighting Forces a strong appeal that effect should be given to the plea that I am making to-day and strong opposition to the decision of the Minister of Labour. I have had some such representations from men who go down to tackle the unexploded bomb, just as I have had them from men who go up into the air and fight our battle in that way. I have had them from bomb disposal squads and from squadron leaders. In the same way I have had the appeal from those in submarines and those in the Fleet Air Arm.
It is rather interesting to notice that any protest against the so-called, or supposed or alleged shirking of responsibility


for military service comes, not from the fighting men but from those who themselves are not in His Majesty's uniform.. As a matter of fact I see the charge that this issue is one of Christianity being used as a cloak of cowardice, coming from the kind of individual who is sitting at home in an easy chair in front of his fire, and whose only contribution to the national effort is to make the "V" sign by putting his feet on the mantelpiece. It will appear why I occupy this position in which I find myself to-day. It is one that I regret to be in. I did not desire to raise this matter and those for whom I speak did not desire that it should be made a public issue of this kind, but if, after the statement by the right hon. Gentleman on nth September, I had failed to accept the challenge—as it seemed to me—that he threw down at that time, I would have thought myself lacking in the spunk and smeddum that a Scotsman should possess.
I have known members of the Oxford Group for a considerable time. I am indebted to the hon. Member for Oxford University (Mr. Herbert) for bringing me into contact with them, because it was his attack upon them that brought me into the field on their side to rebut what, I believe, was his unfair attack upon them at the time when they were seeking their incorporation from the Board of Trade. Much of the strength of the case that I am endeavouring to put to-day arises from the fact that His Majesty's Government, through the Board of Trade, have endorsed this body by giving a charter of incorporation, on the basis of the articles of association of the Oxford Group, as a body for the advancement of the Christian religion. Since that time I have associated with members of the group. I have argued with them and I have found them very agreeable. I have lived with them and I have found them very likeable. I have sheltered with them from falling bombs and I have not found them scared. I have worked with them, walked with them and worshipped with them. I have welcomed them into my home and I have found them worthy of that welcome, and, with my knowledge of them, it befits me to take up on their behalf the challenge on their behalf to-day.
I want to condense what I have to say into the briefest possible compass. One

is tempted to enlarge in a case of this kind, but I know that many Members want to speak and I will do my best to be as brief as circumstances will allow. I entered upon this particular matter which is now in dispute with the idea that I was making a small request to a big man. Circumstances have developed in a way that has made that an absolutely wrong picture of the position. I now find myself raising an issue of immense importance which completely overshadows any personality, including that of the Minister of Labour with whom I am raising it. This matter extends far beyond the simple issue that I raised, first of "all, with the Minister, and I have had indications of the very wide repercussions to the attitude that has been taken up by the Minister of Labour.
With regard to some of the discussion that has taken place in the public Press, I would give what I consider to be kindly advice to the hon. Member for Oxford University. We find him writing letters to the newspapers with, as it appears to me, neither punch nor humour in them, which have been very bluntly replied to by very important quarters that are better able to judge of this issue than he is. But I would say to him on one of the main points that he has always made in respect of this particular issue, that I believe it would be better for him and for his constituents if he concentrated less upon the name of the university which he represents in this House and endeavoured to concentrate more upon the motto of that University. A name is a very chance thing; a motto is something that is decided upon after mature deliberation. If the hon. Member, instead of concentrating upon the use of the name "Oxford" for this body for which I am speaking to-day, would take into account the motto of Oxford University which means ''God is my Light," I believe he would be doing a better service than he has been doing up to the present time. The other side of his objection to this body is the fact that they hold as their leader a distinguished American; Dr. Frank Buchman. I want to say to the hon. Member that it ill becomes anyone in this country, especially at a time like this, to attack an American citizen who is highly respected as Dr. Frank Buchman is, from log cabin to White House, and not only from log cabin


to White House but in log cabin and in White House.
We have seen the efforts of the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford University (Petty-Officer Herbert). His efforts in the sphere of international politics are not as successful, let us hope, as his good work in his launch on the Thames. There was a further letter last week on Dr. Buchman and the Oxford Group, and I have in my hand a cable from distinguished American Congressional and Labour leaders, voicing their resentment. Among them is Senator Claude Pepper, President Roosevelt's close collaborator in the Senate, who is often said to be his spokesman and is also regarded by many as the most aggressive advocate in Congress of aid to Britain. These leaders express their own views of the value of the work of Dr. Frank Buchman and his followers in the following quotation:
Over two years ago there was launched a nation-wide programme of Moral Re-Armament. The value of that programme was publicly recognised by leaders throughout the country, including President Roosevelt, former President Hoover and General Pershing, as well as by the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Lord Halifax, and others in Britain and abroad. Since then war has come to Europe and we in America are well advanced on the greatest national defence effort of our history. The spirit of M.R.A., while providing nations with the only possible basis for future collaboration, continues to supply the inner strength and toughness of character without which no nation can survive in war or peace. It is stimulating the personal patriotism, industrial co-operation and national unity so vital to our own defence programme.
Equally striking proof of the progress of M.R.A. is the character of the opposition. No force for moral unity which assumes national proportions can long escape attack, open or veiled, from anti-moral, anti-social and anti-American elements. A national emergency is a national breeding ground for rumour and innuendo, and subversive forces are exploiting it to the full. In their whispering campaign against M.R.A. these forces are aided and abetted by the complacency and credulity of well-meaning and otherwise patriotic men and women. But forewarned is forearmed, and to this end we urge that you study with care the enclosed article by Mr. Gould Lincoln, which deals authoritatively with the whole matter.
Of Mr. Gould Lincoln, these men say in their cable that he is one of the most widely respected political commentators, noted for his vigorous support of the programme of all-out aid for Britain. His articles appear in the "Washington Star" and are syndicated throughout the Press of America. The recent one in question reads:

A principal detractor of the Oxford Group in England is A. P. Herbert, a Member of Parliament representing Oxford. In efforts to discredit the Group Mr. Herbert has offered resolutions in the House of Commons to deny the Group its name "The Oxford Group." He proposed such a resolution only a few months ago. It got nowhere nor will it. Other Members of Parliament and men and women throughout England and the British Empire immediately rallied to the defence of the Group. However this form of attack has been relayed to America where enemies of the Group have sought too to discredit it and the work it is doing to build better relations in the home and between labour and management.
Mr. Lincoln then goes on to quote an offensive and sneering speech made in public by the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford University about America and her political attitudes and continues:
Mr. Herbert's latest outburst has been an attempt to discredit the Oxford Group in Britain by the fantastic claim that they are 'not religious.' He was promptly put in his place by the combined rebukes of the heads of the Anglican and Free Churches. One hundred and sixty Members of Parliament joined the chorus of indignation against this attempt to throttle religious freedom, apart from 240 civic bodies. But the fact that such a question could arise at all in a country supposedly fighting a world war for Christianity is not calculated to reassure Americans.
The Oxford M.P. is also quoted us accusing Dr. Buchman of being 'no friend to Britain' because he is an American and owed no allegiance to the King. Fortunately it is hot yet the official attitude of the British Government that American citizenship constitutes a bar to aid for Britain. At least the American Congress and people are not proceeding on that assumption. If this is Mr. Herbert's latest attempt to be funny, it is a type of humour that few people on this side of the ocean are likely to appreciate just now.
I want now to give a short factual narrative of how the position in which we find ourselves to-day has developed. On 23rd December last the Oxford Group was asked to furnish full details regarding the work of their 29 full-time evangelists, who had been reserved. This information was provided for the Ministry of Labour in full. Later certain indications seemed to make it necessary to ask for an interview with the Minister. I put this request to the right hon. Gentleman, and he asked me to see Sir William Beveridge, who at that time was dealing with questions of man-power. I took the Secretary of the Group and two other members to discuss the position of these 29 men with Sir William Beveridge on 10th February this year. Sir William


Beveridge indicated that his view at that time, prior to the meeting, was that the Oxford Group was a social organisation with a religious background. I am glad to say that in a later interview, in the presence of the Minister, he receded from that attitude, and, as I understood it, indicated that he accepted the view put forward to him that the Oxford Group was and is a religious body. This question was, therefore, for the time being under consideration by the Minister of Labour, and the leaders of the Oxford Group were waiting for a reply from the Minister.
On 14th March Press statements appeared stating that representations from responsible people had failed to move the Minister and that all the members of the Group who were of military age were required to serve. These newspaper articles were couched in such a way that it might appear that they referred to hundreds if not thousands of members of the Group, but they did in fact refer to the 29 men who had been reserved as lay evangelists up to that time and whose position was under consideration by the Minister. At the interview to which I will refer in a moment or two the Minister of Labour was asked who was responsible for the Press statements that were put out at the time when the Oxford Group were waiting for his official attitude. It did not seem quite right that people who had put the point should have their first information, or what purported to be the information on this matter, from the public Press. I ask the Minister now to say why this means was taken of making that announcement. The Press statements appeared on 14th March, and it was not until 22nd March that the officers of the Group learned of the Minister's decision to narrow the category of lay evangelists so as to apply to men doing work analogous to that of regular ministers of religion. By that means he declared that he was putting outside the Schedule of Reserved Occupations 29 members of the Group who had been reserved up to that time. His letter of 22nd March indicated that in order not immediately to cripple the Group he would reserve 10 men until 30th September I thank the right hon. Gentleman for allowing that number to be raised to 11—the 11 men who are now under discussion. In passing, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman what was his object in altering the definition of lay

evangelists and what has been the result of the alteration. How many previously reserved lay evangelists has the right hon. Gentleman de-reserved by this means, and how many, other than those of the Oxford Group, has he roped into the Armed Forces?
Although this decision was not made public, it did get known, and from the time the Press notice appeared, hon. Members who are adherents of the Group have been pressing for information. Those who raised the matter in that way were told that the earlier Press reports represented the Minister's intentions. Then there came what the right hon. Gentleman has very much complained about. He complains that pressure was brought to bear upon him, and some hon. Members have indicated to me that they have been pressed in connection with this matter. I will say this about pressure. We who have been in the House for some years are accustomed to pressure on different matters that are of public interest. When we get that pressure and it is in the line that we like, it is helpful encouragement to the attitude that we take. It is only pressure when we do not like it or have our doubts about it. This is a democratic assembly. We are democratic. There is no law in this country against people expressing their point of view to us as Members of Parliament, and, indeed, we welcome such representations because they enable us to be fully representative. If we want to be Members of Parliament, then we must be prepared to receive pressure of this kind. We can go to places where we will not have that pressure imposed upon us, but it will not be in a democratic Parliament, and we will not want to go to the places where we cannot be pressed about matters that are affecting the people. I mention two of those places: one is the cemetery, and the other is the gaol.
As the decision of the Minister became known, clerical opinion was expressed, and the Archbishops, many Bishops and many clergy of the Church of England, the Moderator of the Church of Scotland —my own Church, in which I have the honour to be an Elder—the leaders of the Free Churches, and others, expressed their opinion to the Minister that the step he was taking was a wrong one. He was asked by them to receive a deputation of clergy; he was asked to receive a


deputation of civic leaders; in both cases he refused. But the Minister is constitutional and democratic enough to know that he could not refuse—I will give him his due and say that he did not seek to refuse—to see a deputation of Members of Parliament from different parties in the House. That deputation was led by the hon. Member for Gillingham (Sir R. Gower), I was a member of it, and the Minister received us on 10th April.
It was a very important deputation, but to me it did not clarify the position very much. My principal recollection of it is that the Minister's indignation about the pressure that had been brought to bear upon him was the principal subject that he wanted to talk about in reply to the deputation's representations to him. He did not seem to think that the indications that he had of opinion from important quarters was a tribute to his importance as a Cabinet Minister. He took it all in another way altogether, and seemed to think that he should not have any impressions of this kind communicated to him, notwithstanding the fact that many people throughout the country —they are numBèred by many thousands —feel this position very acutely indeed. I say frankly that I got the impression that the right hon. Gentleman's judgment was clouded by his indignation on that matter. We got no answer at that time to an inquiry about the statement to the Press being made prior to the reply being given to the officials of the Group. On the question, when we raised it as a matter of very great importance, of the pronouncement that had been made by the Archbishop of Canterbury and others, the right hon. Gentleman replied to me, "Of course, I know far more about these things than he does." [Interruption.] When I replied, "I am sorry to see you put yourself above the Archbishop with regard to a matter of this kind," the right hon. Gentleman said, "Of course, I know far more. Theology—I have studied all the theologies."

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): I do not object to fair statements, but this is an absolute untruth.

Sir Robert Gower: As leader of the deputation, may I say that my hon. Friend opposite is stating what is absolutely true. The expression used by the right hon. Gentleman was: "I have studied theology and consider that I know

more about the subject than the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishops and the leaders of the Free Churches in this country." I am surprised at my right hon. Friend denying what my hon. Friend said.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Does the hon. Member mean that the Minister of Labour does know more about theology than the Archbishop?

Mr. Mathers: I am not at the moment expressing my own opinion; I am giving an account of what took place at an interview, and I am perfectly clear in my recollection. The right hon. Gentleman may have meant what he said to be taken humorously. I do not deny that that may have been the case, but we were there on a very important and a very serious matter, and I thought it was wrong for him to express his opinion of the Archbishop's declaration in that way. In the matter of theology, I am not so well versed as the right hon. Gentleman is in respect of all the theologies. I gather my simple faith in an easier way than that. I take myself back to the kind of faith expressed by Robert Burns in one of the most sincere poems that he ever wrote, the "Epistle to a Young Friend." After saying,
An atheist laugh's a poor exchange For Deity offended,
he goes on,
When ranting round in pleasure's ring,
Religion may be blinded;
Or, if she gie a random sting,
It may be little minded;
But when on life we're tempest-driv'n,
A conscience but a canker—
A correspondence fix'd wi' Heav'n
Is sure a noble anchor.
My experience of the Oxford Group is that they help people to establish for themselves that correspondence which is such a noble anchor. I have also a vivid recollection of a question which was put to me by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Assheton) at that deputation: He fired a question at me, asking whether the Oxford Group was a denomination. I thought about it for a moment, and then said, "In my judgment I would not say that the Oxford Group is a denomination." The hon. Member thereupon displayed such jubilation that I thought perhaps I had put my foot in it. I was anxious about this, and when I next came in contact with the Oxford Group I asked whether


I was right or wrong, and I was told that I was perfectly right in what I had said. I came away from that deputation feeling disappointed, but comforted in one respect. In the course of the discussion I told the Minister that he was going to destroy this movement, and his reply was, "I am not destroying it. I am leaving 10 to carry on." I pointed out that he was taking them away at the end of September, and that that meant that the movement would be destroyed. The Minister replied, with impatience, I thought, that he could easily meet me on that. I conveyed his remarks to the officers of the Group, and on the strength of the statement I obtained they made no objection to 18 of the 29 men being taken away, in spite of the fact that I indicated that the question should be thrashed out as a matter of principle in regard to the whole 29.

Mr. Mander: The hon. Member is giving us a good deal of information about a deputation. May I ask whether this was a private or a public deputation?

Mr. Mathers: It was a private deputation to learn from the Minister what were his views about a matter of very great public importance. If you, Mr. Speaker, rule that I should not mention what occurred at this deputation then, of course, I will not pursue the matter. Relying on that promise, the Oxford Group, without protest, allowed 18 of these 29 men to go. On 31st July I asked the right hon. Gentleman how he proposed to give effect to his promise, and to my surprise he indicated that he was reverting to his original intention to call up all the members who had been previously reserved. On that occasion he indicated to me that there was doubt in some minds as to whether or not the Group was a body of a religious character. He said he was not going to take it upon himself to give the Group endorsement as a religious body. I did not say anything about that, but I recalled the granting of incorporation by the Board of Trade and, like the pretty milkmaid, I felt like saying," 'Nobody asked you, Sir,' she said." In order to get the matter perfectly clear, I wrote a letter to my right hon. Friend, and I received a reply indicating that he intended to call up the whole II.
I want to mention the type of men about whom this question is being raised. Out of the 29 men, 10 are ready for ordination as ministers of a Church. Statements have been put around that these men are evading their military duty, and it has been suggested that they are not men with a serious call to Christianity but are merely idlers anxious to avoid military service. That is a point of view which has been spread about in some quarters and in some sections of the Press. I will give the House three examples. One of these men had his medical examination on 30th September, the very day on which his reservation expired. He is 37 years old, and five years ago was a master at one of the most famous public schools. He had security and a career before him. As a result of meeting the Group he felt called to Christian service, and, after consultation with the Bishop of his Church, he gave up his position, in spite of the fact that he was a married man with three children, to become a member of the Group. He accepted their responsibilities in every sense. As a schoolmaster he would still be reserved, but because he gave up his career and security he has ceased to be reserved and is now to enter the Forces.
Another man, who is 32 years of age, comes from a working-class home in the north. He went to Oxford University on State and other scholarships. Academically he was regarded as brilliant. He was an agnostic, but as a result of meeting the Group he was converted to Christianity. He studied theology and obtained first-class honours. He proceeded to a theological college where he passed all the examinations necessary for entering the Baptist Ministry. For the past seven years he has used this training as a lay evangelist with the Group. Like the other Oxford Group whole-time workers, his days have begun at 5.30 a.m. and have usually lasted until 11 p.m. Now he must discontinue his religious work. Had he still been at his theological college and never given those seven years' arduous service, he would be allowed to continue his vocation unhindered and be reserved from military service.
The third man has already been called up under the Minister's order, and he is now a private in the Royal Armoured Corps. As a lieutenant he has previously


served in the Army on the North-West Frontier. In 1936 he became convinced that he was called for spiritual work. He resigned his commission and began training for ordination. At the close of his training, in 1937, with the approval of his bishop, he entered the Oxford Group as a full-time worker, and has worked continually until his calling up. If these men cannot properly be described as lay evangelists, I want to know who can be so described. Statements are made against members of the Group in other countries. I would point out that one of the leaders of the Group in occupied territory, in Scandinavia, has been sentenced by the Nazis to 15 years' hard labour for adhering to his Christian views. The Oxford Group were the first to be attacked by the Nazis in Scandinavia because of their pro-British tendencies. I also wish to put on record a resolution passed by the Free Church Federal Council on 23rd September:
That the Free Church Federal Council deeply deplores the decision of the Minister of Labour to take for War Service almost all the small residue of organising workers of the Oxford Group Movement who have hitherto been left to carry on its work. The ground upon which the Minister has based his decision, namely, that the movement is social and not religious, is surprisingly erroneous, since the movement is fundamentally religious and its social activities are merely the consequence of its religious work. At a time when the nation is at war on behalf of the values of Christian civilisation, the decision of the Minister is gravely to be deprecated as unfriendly to the influences from which these values are derived and by which they are sustained.
The Minister says, however, that the group is not a religious body. I will leave others—I hope they may catch your eye, Sir—to deal with that on legal grounds. I will give one quotation from a Methodist minister. He says:
As a Methodist minister having no connection with the Oxford Group movement, but having had very considerable experience of the invaluable service it is rendering to the moral and social life of the nation, I wish you every success in your effort to reverse Mr. Bevin's amazing decision. I have written to tell Mr. Bevin that if after the results, both social and domestic as well as religious, which I have witnessed in my own church by the ministries of the Oxford Group movement, theirs is not a religious movement, then I could not claim that the Methodist Church, or its 50 millions of members, to which I belong, can be so classified.
I protest, too, against the Minister's decision, and indeed I deny the competence.

I deny the propriety, of the Minister of Labour, or the Government itself, to decide a matter of this kind contrary to the express conviction of the best obtainable religious opinion in the country. I am appealing to him for a reversal of what I believe to be a wrong decision. I believe it is wrong in law; I know it is wrong in fact; I am positive that it is wrong in equity. If the right hon. Gentleman tries to meet me on legal grounds, on grounds of fact, I shall still claim that he and the Government which is backing him are wrong in equity in taking this decision. I have no peroration. I finish what I have to say by reading part of a letter from a parish minister in my own constituency. He says:
I trust that when the matter is brought again before the House of Commons, as I understand it will be, you will find it convenient to tell the House that many of us clergy view with alarm this apparent attack on religious freedom and toleration, and that we hope that the Minister of Labour will see his way clear to revoke his former decision and thus remove any misconceptions on this point. It would be worse than folly to labour and sacrifice and fight for the cause of freedom in other lands only to watch it gradually disappear in our own.
I commend that observation to the Minister of Labour, and I hope we shall have a sympathetic reply from him.

Sir Edward Campbell: It is many years since I addressed the House, and I should not do so now did I not feel that it is absolutely necessary that someone should state the position of the country. I feel very strongly that every available able-bodied man should join the Fighting Forces, no matter what he is doing. There are, to my mind, far too many young able-bodied men who for some reason or another, upon some pretext, have got exemption from military service, and I think that is wrong. I often think that some people do not realise the seriousness of our position. We are far from victory, and if we are to win, everyone capable of doing so must pull his weight to the very best of his ability now. I have read a great deal about the Oxford Group. I have nothing to do with the correspondence on one side or the other. I believe the Oxford Group is a perfectly genuine group, and I believe it is doing very good work, but in my constituency several shopkeepers, despite all my endeavours to get them


exemption, have been called up and had their shops closed down because they were unable to obtain temporary managers. This has caused great inconvenience to many hundreds of customers, and, even worse, in several instances it has caused great distress to families, and in two cases that I know to the widowed mothers of some of the young fellows who have been called up.
With that in mind, how can I support a proposal of this sort? Here are men who have been called up, and the result has been that many people have suffered great distress, or at least great inconvenience, because in these days, when it is difficult to get petrol and we have the black-out and all sorts of inconveniences as the result of the war, it is not so easy to shop as it used to be, and one must take that into consideration. Moreover, I cannot help asking how it is that a movement such as this, which is so well known and so much appreciated throughout the country, cannot find 11 able-bodied men of an older age, old fossils like myself, to support and help to run the organisation.

Mr. McGovern: You would destroy the movement.

Sir E. Campbell: That is possibly the very reason why they have never asked me to support it. I am to a certain extent a moving spirit in the Boys' Club movement, and the Scouts, another very excellent organisation, and I would not ask for one of them to be exempted. Therefore I feel that, though we have heard an eloquent speech, though rather long for a Scotsman, the Oxford Group, if it wants the sympathy of the country, should arrange among themselves to find someone able to run the organisation just for the term of the war and that the good that is in these men who are sent to the war will have its use at the war.

Colonel Sir George Courthope: I should like to add a few words to the appeal of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers) that these last 11 men of the staff of the Oxford Group who have been called up should be reserved. I do so, because I seriously think a mistake is being made. It is a mistake which could easily be rectified, and I think should be rectified, by the Minister to-day.

On the 17th of last month I had the privilege of sending to the Minister of Labour a Memorial signed by over 170 Members of Parliament. I will read the concluding sentence of it:
We believe that in view of the declared character and purpose of this war this vital Christian movement should be preserved and that the handful of men that remain, now only 11 in all, should be allowed to continue the work to which they pledged their lives years before war began.
The Minister replied on 26th September holding out no hope that his decision would be varied, and saying:
It should be observed that this decision in no way deprives individuals of their rights as conscientious objectors.
My right hon. Friend knows perfectly well that this has nothing to do with conscientious objection. These men are not conscientious objectors; they are the remnant of the staff of an organisation which is doing fine work. The rest of the young men of that staff are already on service, and it is the desire to keep what we believe to be a valuable movement going that has induced the officers of the Oxford Group to apply for the reservation of this small nucleus of 11 men. I do not know whether the House is aware that of these 11 no fewer than eight were specially commissioned for evangelistic work in 1937 at a commissioning service by the Archbishop of Canterbury. They are specially commissioned and dedicated for the work they have been doing. We who signed the Memorial to the Minister believe that he has made a great mistake in deciding, contrary to the opinion of the heads of the Churches, that the work of the Oxford Group is not a religious work. I am in a position to say that the Archbishop of Canterbury adheres to his opinion that this is a religious work and that these men should be reserved as lay evangelists.

Earl Winterton: Do I understand my right hon. and gallant Friend to say that the Archbishop of Canterbury says that this movement is a separate Church?

Sir G. Courthope: I did not say anything of the kind. I said that it was a religious work and that in the Archbishop's opinion these 11 men should be reserved as lay evangelists. I understand that he has written that opinion to the Minister, not once or twice, but three times during recent weeks.
Why do we, or some of us Members of Parliament, mind so much whether the Minister makes this mistake or not? Most of us who signed that Memorial are not members of the Group. I am not myself. All of us, however, in some way or other, in some place or other, have seen the Group's work and been impressed with its value. I first came across its work in South Africa, where I found that a remarkable achievement had been wrought by a number of members of the Group, who were South African Rhodes Scholars from Oxford, in smoothing out the difficulties between the British and the Afrikanders and between white and colour which were causing great trouble. Since then I have known a number of persons, some of them personal friends of mine, whose characters have been completely reformed by contact with the Group. A large number of us have watched with great interest and appreciation the campaign of moral rearmament, as it is called, which has been having a remarkable effect in different parts of the country. Many of the civic heads of our towns and cities have gone out of their way to testify to the value of this work among the populations which are under their control, and leaders of industry and labour have testified that the value of the work of moral rearmament in settling disputes has been great. We feel that in these circumstances there has been definitely unfair discrimination on the part of the Minister against this Group, and anything like unfair discrimination is abhorrent to Members of this House which is the mainstay of liberty in these difficult times.
We feel that the refusal of the Minister to reserve these 11 men is a definite repulse to Christian progress. Many of us feel very acutely that at the present time there is a great need for a spiritual background to our war effort. We have to introduce this spiritual background to our struggle of right against might, of high ideals against the lust of conquest, and of good against evil. Every religious body in the English-speaking world is striving towards this end. The Oxford group, we believe, has played a very notable part in this endeavour to put a spiritual background to our war effort. Recently we have all been thrilled by the thought of our Prime Minister and the President of the United States of America, the heads of the two great English-speaking democracies, joining in prayer and

praise on the deck of a British battleship. They emphasised the importance of the Christian elements in the war which we are waging, and they went a long way towards establishing this spiritual background, the need of which, we all feel, is very great. In view of the contribution, I think the splendid contribution, that the Oxford Movement has made to this subject, I feel that its breaking up by the calling up of the last nucleus of its staff will be a definite blow, not only to the movement but to Christian bodies and organisations in general.
I am authorised to state that the Bishop of Manchester, who, as the Minister knows, has been assisting in examining the applicants for reservation as lay evangelists of the Church of England, offered to perform the same duties for these members of the Oxford Group. Up to the present the offer has not been accepted, but it is still open. It has been renewed by the Bishop of Manchester with the full knowledge and approval of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and I am informed by the headquarters of the Oxford Group that if the offer is accepted they are willing to abide without question by the decisions that the Bishop makes. With all the force at my command I urge the Minister of Labour to accept this offer and thus relieve himself of the difficult and invidious position in which his refusal has placed him.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): There has been an attempt in this discussion to drag in the whole issue of religion, and it was a matter of very great regret to me to find an old colleague, for whom I have had the greatest respect ever since he and I have been in public life, trying to drag in from his memory what happened at a private meeting. If he is a member of the Group I hope that he will learn to put his conduct a little higher than that.

Mr. Mathers: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I ask you, Sir, whether it was permissible for me to mention, as I did, what actually took place at that interview. I would say to the right hon. Gentleman that I am not a member of the Oxford Group, but I do support their work.

Mr. Speaker: The question which the hon. Member has put to me is not a point of Order. It is a matter of taste.

Mr. Bevin: Thank you, Sir, that expresses all that I wanted to say. I may be controversial and I cannot help it, for I have lived in a world of fighting all my life, and coming to this House will not destroy my combative spirit. I give, and I take, but I never carry my feelings further afterwards, and I do not think that anyone can say of me during the 17 months I have been in this House, that I have ever been discourteous to anybody on the hundreds of deputations I have received and in the discussions in which I have engaged. This is not a question of religion at all, and if I may answer immediately the right hon. and gallant Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope), I would say, speaking as Minister of Labour, and I believe with the full concurrence of my colleagues in the Government, that we are not prepared to abandon our obligations or our duties to the Bishop of Manchester or to anybody else. We are responsible to this House, and it is for the House to determine whether we have done wrong or not.
We have a terrible responsibility under this Act. Both my predecessor and I since I have held office can boast, I think, of a very remarkable record. Here is an Act of Parliament affecting the lives of some 7,000,000 citizens. It vitally concerns their future, their education, their rights, their businesses. All are placed on the altar of the State, with no exemptions except as provided in the Act—I come to that in a moment—and Parliament has placed upon the Minister of National Service the very onerous and responsible duty of holding the scales justly between citizen and citizen. That is a very difficult thing to do. I suggest that in this capacity we are not merely political heads. In the administration of this Act we discharge, if I may suggest it without egotism, a more difficult and delicate responsibility than any judge on the bench to-day, because of the individual claims as between citizen and citizen which we have to adjust day by day and hour by hour. Even minute by minute, the claims are coming before us, as Members of Parliament well know. The two years' working of this Act has involved a tremendous readjustment of the whole of our national life, with the calling up of —I cannot mention figures, but hon. Members can guess them—a very large proportion of the population to serve in the Forces.
We direct thousands of other people to change their jobs and possibly to give up large salaries, to incur, as was said in the House the other day, losses of £200, £300, £400, £500, and in some cases thousands of pounds, a year to take other work in the interests of the State. Those orders have to be given clay by day, hour by hour. It is a delicate and difficult responsibility. Let it once get into the heads of the citizens of this country that any Minister ran away because of organised pressure upon him in any form, and you have lost this war. I am glad this Debate has come on, because I do not think the House has appreciated what this National Service Act really means in the lives of our people. That is brought out only bit by bit, when Questions are put to me, when complaint is made that somebody has been taken who ought not to have been taken; but, comprehensively, I do not believe the House has fully appreciated all that that Act means. I would also emphasise that the marvellous way in which the citizens of this country have responded to this Act throws an added responsibility upon anyone who has to administer it.
Let me deal with the details of this matter and emphasise, first, what is the legal position. Under the Act every person between the ages of 18 and 41 is liable to serve in the Forces, except those who are expressly exempted under the Act. That is not in the Schedule; that is in the Act itself. If it is said that I have done wrong under the Act there are the courts to put me right. The Government can be challenged there My own view, and the view of my advisers, is that by no stretch of imagination can these men be brought within the terms of the express exemptions under the Act. In the administration of the Act the Government of the day and my predecessor did a very wise thing, based on the experience of the chaos at the end of the last war. Let the House remember how men were called up and then had to be got back. To meet that difficulty a Schedule of Reserved Occupations was devised. This Schedule of Reserved Occupations is purely an administrative instrument. It confers no legal rights on anybody. It is changed practically every day. You need only look at your newspapers, and you will frequently see announcements from the Ministry of Labour that the age of reservation has gone up or down, or


that categories have been taken in or put out. It is part of the administrative machine.
The object of the Schedule was to reserve those who were regarded as absolutely essential to the war production effort. Fundamentally, that is why it was designed. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the spiritual side?"] I will come to that in a moment. I hope that the House will take it that I am trying to deal fairly in this matter. I have no desire to score off anybody. This is a difficult job, and whoever administers it is entitled to the sympathy and the help of the House. The first aim, as I say, was to deal with the productive effort. It introduced a method that was called deferment. I want to emphasise that word. The deferment has to be carried out with strict regard to the claims, responsibilities and necessities of each case.
I come to the spiritual side and to the exemption provision. The exemption says:
a man in Holy Orders, or a regular minister of any religious denomination.
That is in the Act, and, as far as that is concerned, there is no question. I have already said that if, for any reason, I am held to have failed to observe that injunction in the Act, the remedy can be sought in the courts. Then arose the questions of others not covered by the Act, but engaged in spiritual work which seemed analogous to the work of a minister of religion as described by the Act. This problem was a very difficult one to solve. There is not perfect unity among all the Churches. There is a large number of sects and divisions of all kinds. It was, therefore, rather difficult to settle this matter. It was claimed that some who were left out should be in and some who were in should be left out. We tried to define the position as a guide to administration. I will read slowly to the House what is in the Schedule, so that hon. Members may clearly understand what was intended:
A man who has, since before September, 1939, been engaged whole-time by a recognised religious body in religious work analogous to that of a regular minister of a religious denomination, and continues in such work without interruption.
There are many religious societies and bodies which claimed reservation for their workers under this definition. I hope that my right hon. and gallant Friend the

Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope), for whom I have great respect, did not seriously mean it when he suggested that I, as a Minister, would use discrimination. I really would not do so. I had to consider a large number of people who inquired whether they came within this definition. I examined their claims. It is rather striking that the one which we arc discussing is the only case that has been challenged in this House. Bodies such as the Y.M.C.A. were told that they did not come within this definition, and they patriotically accepted the decision. No one can say that Toc H is not a highly religious organisation. That was not in question, but, on the analogy, we had to say that Toc H did not come within the definition. Toc H did not challenge that decision. I am sure that those two cases, without citing others, will satisfy my right hon. and gallant Friend.

Mr. Lipson: What is the position of the Salvation Army?

Mr. Bevin: This matter was decided, as in the last war. The exemption Clause of the Act is held to cover commissioners and certain other officers analogous to regular ministers and doing religious work. They were not under the Schedule with which I am now dealing. Therefore—to resume my argument—I was in another great difficulty. There were so many of these bodies. When a test had to be taken about the Oxford Group I had to ask myself certain questions. I had to ask, "Is it a recognised religious body in the ordinary sense, and purely in that sense?" I am not questioning its religious basis. "Is it, within the intention of this definition, a religious body?" I can be guided only by the facts of the situation. It has already been mentioned in this House that the Group is registered as a company, but I did not regard that as conclusive. [Laughter.] I mean that seriously. I did not regard the fact that the Group were registered as a company as ruling them out for consideration. It was argued that this did not preclude them from being regarded as a recognised religious body, and I was not going to be drawn into a lot of legal technicalities.
I do not wish to argue the point, but I could not ignore—I do not think this House will say it was right for me to ignore—the very important fact that, in the case of Thackrah versus Wilson in 1939, Mr. Justice Bennett said:


This Group seeks to combine people together by a religious bond, but that is not the promotion of religion as understood in law. I cannot find the Group existed purely for the purpose of promotion of religion.
I do not think any Minister can ignore an important judgment of that character. Since this controversy has been on, and as so many bishops have been quoted against me, perhaps it is not unfair if I bring out one author on my side. I saw his letter in the "Daily Telegraph" recently. He is only an assistant bishop, but, as the boy said, there is hope. There were some very pertinent questions put in this letter, and I should like to quote from it.
A few years ago I was present at a meeting attended by Dr. Buchman, who was good enough to answer certain questions I ventured to put to him. These are the questions: 'Is it your intention that the outcome of your evangelistic work should be the formation of a new religious body?'
—that is a test I must apply—
The answer was 'No.' 'Have you or do you intend to have paid evangelists? ' The answer was ' No.' My third question was as to the objective of his work. Dr. Buchman's reply, after I had made clear my meaning, was that his movement was intended to assist the churches and in no way to set up an organisation to which individuals should look as finally satisfying their spiritual needs.
So I am fortified, at least, by an assistant bishop in this controversy. In my examination of this case I had to realise, quite frankly, that there would be tremendous propaganda about my decision. I anticipated that strong representations would be made whatever decision I came to. If I had refused to give consent, or if I had given consent to their being called up, I knew there would be an overwhelming upset on the other side in a controversial issue of this character. So, in this case I took every possible precaution in arriving at my judgment, which I felt would be challenged one day, either outside or inside this House. I had to ask myself various questions. I took into consultation in my examination of this problem—and I am sure they will not mind my mentioning it—my two Parliamentary Secretaries. One of them, happens to be a member of the House of Laity, and the other happens to be a very enthusiastic and energetic local preacher in the Nonconformist world. I thought the two of them would be fairly representative of the type of mind that it was

worth while consulting in my own Department. I have their authority for saying that they not only support my conclusion, but that they think I am absolutely right both in the method and the manner in which I have tried to deal with this case. I had to ask myself was the work of these young men analogous to that of a regular minister of a regular denomination? I do not think that that is a claim which will be seriously put forward. From inquiries I have been able to make I do not think it can be maintained that the work of these young Oxford Group men is analogous to that of a regular minister of the Church.

Captain Cobb: It is probably a great deal more valuable, in many cases.

Mr. Bevin: It is not for me to question its value. I beg hon. Members who have prejudices against -this or that Church to be like me—impartial. There are, clearly, a number of duties performed by regular ministers which are not performed by Oxford Group workers. I cannot regard the latters' work as sufficiently analogous to that of a regular minister to justify their inclusion within this definition.

Mr. Mathers: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to put a question to him? He has indicated to the House that there are 400 lay evangelists reserved. Do any of these 400 lay evangelists completely cover, and are they legally entitled completely to cover, the duties of an ordained minister of religion?

Mr. Bevin: Not ordained—I did not apply the ordination test at all. I have made that perfectly clear; we. are dealing with the Schedule. I have been asked a question as to how many organisations would be dealt with. There are 32 religious organisations of one kind or another whose workers have not been reserved. There is a number of others whose workers, as I have announced to the House, have been reserved, and I cannot, from memory, go into the details of every case that has been examined by the Department.
I desire to make this quite clear, with all the emphasis at my command. I am not passing, have not passed, and do not intend to pass judgment as to whether their work is religious or has a religious


basis, nor to question in any way what the results of their work are. That is not what is before me, nor is it before the House. I have to satisfy myself, under the obligations imposed upon me by the National Service Act, whether or not they fall under the Act which would give them exemption, or whether, in common with other bodies, they fulfil the qualifications for the moment laid down in the Schedule, which, as I have said, may be subject to alteration at any time. In my examination, by neither of these tests did I feel that these 11 or 29 men should be exempted or reserved. There was no ground for their exemption under the Act, and there was no ground upon which, having regard to the claims made for man power, I could say that they were entitled to deferment. Indeed, had I given in on this matter I should have brought up the position of an enormous number of bodies. I could not have denied to Jehovah's Witnesses what I had granted to them. [Interruption.] I did not say that to raise a laugh, but if I had come to this House and said that I had deferred the officers of Jehovah's Witnesses because they happened to be pacifists and conscientious objectors, I should have raised a storm the other way, and I should have been told I had done wrong to include them in the Schedule. I say this only to point out to the House how difficult it is to judge between one and the other.
Last April, as has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Gillingham (Sir R. Gower), I received a deputation of all parties. I think, if I may say so, that it was a most effective coalition. Attempts have been made to tell you what happened on that deputation. I may have said something about having studied theology. In that, I do not claim to be superior to the Archbishop of Canterbury, because he has had a full-time job of it all his life and I, only dealt with it a little when I was young. But I do not think it is wrong for me to say, as I probably said then, that one of my early studies which has had a great influence on me was, not so much a particular theology as a comparison of the various theologies of the world, and that has made me very tolerant of any theology in the world.
I think it has been very useful at least to have given some elementary thought to the question of theology. After all, religion is a great universal emotion. It

is in every man from the aborigine to the highest intellectual. The difficulty and the quarrels come in when we attempt to crystallise it into a ritual, not the great emotion which is the basis of human affairs. I feel that very strongly. Therefore, it is not with an anti-religious bias that I approach this problem. The number of men affected was 29. I took what I thought was a generous view, that I would not act in any unkind or ruthless way. When I had found that they could not come within the Schedule or the Act, and had to tell them that they would have to be called up, I suggested that they might name 11 out of 29 people between the ages of 30 and 37 to carry on for six months in order to give them a chance to get other people to continue their work during the war. Was that an unreasonable thing to do? If I was wrong why was I not challenged then?

Sir Waldron Smithers: May I ask whether it is the Minister who gives the final decision under the Regulations, as to who shall be reserved or de-reserved?

Mr. Bevin: Yes, the responsibility is mine, imposed on me by Parliament. I thought if I could do what I have just indicated it would help. I had no desire to cripple the organisation. What advantage is it to me to cripple it? I could not cripple it if I tried. It would be perfectly silly.

Major Cazalet: Does the Minister really believe it is possible in six months to find alternative men of a particular age for these duties?

Mr. Bevin: I think that question answers itself. To take the case of a person in business, the hardship courts alone—

Major Cazalet: This is a religion.

Mr. Bevin: The hardship courts, I say, are allowed to give only twelve months as a maximum, whatever the difficulty of the circumstances may be. It is very hard for me to believe, and it is hard for the House to believe, that a movement like this is solely dependent on these men. I should need a great deal of convincing on that point. After six months the calling-up time came. I do not resent high-pressure organisation, but this business has gone a little beyond the mark.
Mention has been made of two lord mayors. I am not going to raise prejudice but I should advise this Group to be a little more careful. The Lord Mayor of Hull told me that at 8 o'clock in the morning two men arrived, planted a document before him, and called upon him to sign it and send it to Mr. Bevin. The Lord Mayor of Leeds told me a similar story. I have here a letter from the Mayor of Nottingham, who indicates the same kind of policy. A Member of this House, who is prepared to support what I say, brought me a message from the Mayor of Blyth to tell me that they called upon him, told a story and ended by saying, "With Mr. Bevin it can be understood because he is an atheist." That is going a little bit too far. [Interruption.]
I make no further comment. But I do suggest that if you are trying to put pressure on a Government carrying out a policy, that is one thing, but if you try to put pressure on a Minister who has to carry out a judicial function, and hold the scales between man and man, that is another thing. I repeat that these scales have to be held fairly, and I say to the members of the Oxford Group, now that they have heard my explanation: "When you appeal to me to withdraw my decision, my answer is that you will win confidence in the country if you say you are prepared to take your corner in the great struggle" There is a Scriptural text:
Render, therefore, unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
In this case, as I read this war and the issues involved, happily there is no conflict between Caesar and the Lord. It is a struggle for a righteous cause. What would the House and the nation think of any Minister who, because he was faced with an overwhelming agitation and pressure, took an easy line and exempted or deferred these men, and then proceeded to call up to the Services 11 other unknown men, who had no influence and no one to state their case, but who possibly might be in a more precarious position themselves. Such an act, on the part of any responsible Minister, would got be in accordance with my conception of Christian ethics, justice or fair play.

Petty-Officer A. P. Herbert: I hope it will not be

deemed impertinent if one of the representatives of Oxford University intervenes in a Debate in which that name is so often mentioned. I do not think the Minister needs any assistance from me. I can only congratulate him on the firm and wise decision he has made, but I wish he had gone a little further. I think that this Government has been weak, as the last Government was weak, in this affair. It will be clear now that this affair was, for once, not due to my machinations, nor would I ever have thought of going about driving these young men into the Forces. I knew nothing whatever about it. I have many other things to do besides that. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers) whose sincerity I greatly admire, and I am only sorry that a man of his powers and parts should Have got mixed up in this kind of thing. I thank him for his advice as to what may harm me in what I do. But let me tell him that when I believe that something is right for my country and constituency, I try hard not to bother about what harm it may do me. I know what I am up against with this vast, wealthy and ruthless organisation, able at this moment to flood the country with a four-page leaflet on expensive paper, with a printed covering letter, and by the way, with no printer's name on it according to the law. I know well what I am up against. Believe me, I am as tired of this vendetta as everyone else, but I am also tired of hearing these expressions about vendettas and persecution.
The language and the technique of the Oxford Group Company, Limited, is strikingly and sadly similar to that of the Nazis. Everything which is done against them is "encirclement" and "persecution." But they can ride roughshod over the feelings of everybody in the name of God. It is understandable that ordinary Members of this House and ordinary members of the public should not have understood how deep and bitter was our resentment against what this body did to us and the way in which it was done. But they knew. Now it does not lie in their mouths, when Nemesis has at last come upon those who wish to make the best of both worlds, to talk about vendettas. Hitler, I believe, thinks that the Czechs and the Poles are conducting a "petty vendetta" against him. That is


roughly the position between these people and me.
I, so far from voting against the Government for taking too strong a line, would be almost inclined to go the other way. I cannot accept the opinion which seems to be abroad that any body calling itself a religious body can, ipso facto and automatically, come to Ministers and to this House and demand special privileges. In war-time especially, we are entitled to look at them and say, "Are you, in every way, politically above suspicion? Are we quite sure that in your principles and practices, in your personalities and your leaders, you may not be a danger to the State?"

Sir W. Smithers: Can the hon. Member bring any proof of this?

Petty-Officer Herbert: I have not, so far, made any assertion whatever.

Sir W. Smithers: You said: "a danger to the State."

Petty-Officer Herbert: I said that we are entitled to ask whether, in the case of a body demanding special privileges of the State, we are satisfied that it is not a danger to the State. I am not seeking to rake up old scores, but during that old controversy in the spring of 1939 I naturally received a great many letters from people who do not regard the Company and its leader with such affection and respect as my hon. Friend does. I did not take them all seriously. We all know that everybody writes letters about everybody else nowadays. I have hundreds of these letters at home which make the most shocking allegations, which I would never dream of mentioning. But I was, quite apart from all the Oxford business, deeply and genuinely concerned about the number of letters which suggested some sort of sinister relationship between the Company—or what was then the "Group "—and the Nazi leadership. We have heard all sorts of stories about Frau Himmler, for instance, being one of them. Many of these stories are not capable of proof, because you cannot have proof in the case of a body of people who are so reluctant to bring a libel action as this organisation—and indeed most of us—are. I do not think that in a matter of this sort what might be called police-court proof is essential. A body coming to this House and asking for special privileges must be, I think, above suspicion.
I am not satisfied that this body is above suspicion. I am not going to leave it at that. The charge I make, the charge which I made in the papers the other day, is that Dr. Buchman is not a true friend of this country. I said there was no reason why he should be, because he was an American citizen. But in saying that, I was not sneering at Americans but in a sense excusing him. I meant that I think he loves Hitler as well as he loves us, and secondly, that there is, in his teaching and in his record, a strange tendency towards flabbiness on the one hand and Fascism on the other. That is a queer combination. Both elements are inimical to the war effort. Thirdly, although the great bulk of these boys are good, innocent, brave boys, and will fight, I dare say, better than I shall, in the Forces, there is this dangerous suggestion of flabbiness and Fascism among the very people we are discussing—the evangelists.
I will tell the House the type of thing I have in mind. I have chosen only two or three of the hundreds of letters I have had. I agree that they are not proof of anything but they would lead to proof in a libel action. If anybody wants to bring a libel action, I will hand them to the Press after I leave the House. I have one here from an old clergyman. By the way, I recall the remark my hon. Friend made about the Oxford motto, "The Lord is my Light." I ask that I might humbly remind the House of this. Unworthily and strangely though I may do it, I do represent 5,000 clergymen of the Church of England—I think about one-quarter of the whole body—and, although I quite agree that many of them may shudder at my name—I heard of the Dean of Somewhere, who said that Oxford is to-day represented by a boat builder and a buffoon—I believe I have the majority of them behind me in this matter. This letter is from an old clergyman:
Two members of the Group called on me with what seemed to me to be a harmful leaflet on what they called Moral Rearmament, demanding that I, as a clergyman, should give it my blessing. I at once refused. One said to me, in a cow-eyed, mooing fashion, ' If it was God's will that Hitler should conquer, would you not submit'?
I think that is the most terrifying sentence in all the documents in my possession. That was the flabby spirit that prevailed in Western Europe at the beginning of the war. It is not the spirit of Europe


to-day, it is not the spirit of Britain, or of Colonel Britton. It is not the spirit of the Prime Minister, who said:
We shall fight in the streets; we shall fight on the beaches.
No young man is going to fight in the streets for long who has that poison in his soul. I will do this boy justice, whoever he was, and say that that was not the spirit of that young man until Dr. Buchman and his evangelists got at him.
I have been challenged by Mr. Peter Howard, whom we used to know so well out there in the Lobby. I am told that he has greatly changed since he became a Buchmanite, and I am sure that that is so. But as an accurate reporter of the remarks of Members of Parliament, as a commentator and controversialist, I must say that the new Peter Howard bears some striking similarity to the one we used to know. I will not go into all the points he made, but he challenged me to produce a single "concrete" piece of evidence that a Grouper or Evangelist was more likely to favour a bogus peace move than anybody else. Well, that letter is the kind of thing I have in mind. But I have something more than that. Here is a letter from a Scottish clergyman. I will first read the last sentence, in which he says:
If you want my credentials, I think Mr. Tom Johnston, the new Secretary for Scotland, Mr. Ernest Brown, the new Minister of Health, or the Rev. James Barr will give them.
I consulted those gentlemen without showing them the letter. Of course, they are not committed; but they all said that the writer of this letter is an honest man. This was sent to Members of Parliament generally and not to me. He writes:
It was my unhappy lot to have among the members of my church "—
I will not mention any names unless the House insists—
a millowner who claims to be the person who first brought Dr. Buchman to Scotland"—
that is to say, he was a friend of the doctor—
This local Fuehrer of the Oxford Group demanded that I should refrain from any criticism of Hitler in my church or from the use of any language in my public affairs which might call for his defeat or destruction. Unless I gave an undertaking to refrain from the use of such language and unless I would clarify my attitude towards Hitler, (I) he would find it necessary to interrupt public

worship if criticism of Hitler was made, and (2) he would leave the church—which, thank God, he did.
Are we not entitled to ask these young men who wish to be released, as evangelists, if that is the kind of gospel they are going to hawk about the country and give to our young men and girls, whether there is "police-court" proof or not? Here is another:
I have a guest house here and have come in contact with some of the Groupers. Far from denouncing Hitler and company, one of the leaders sat in my lounge (about the time of the 1938 crisis) and defended Hitler and, the Nazi regime, maintained that Germany was more democratic and more sincere than this country.
Here is another letter about Denmark:
I was in Denmark before the war and I am prepared to say without question that the Oxford Movement was the main force in spreading defeatism and rotting the morale of the upper and middle classes. I have it on the best authority and I am satisfied as to the authenticity of my information, that in Denmark since the German occupation the whole leadership of youth has been placed under the Moral Rearmament Group. It must be assumed that this is done with the assent of the German authorities as in the other occupied countries.
Though not one of these letters may constitute proof there is such a cloud of suspicion, so much smoke, that we are entitled to ask in time of war at least whether there is not a little more.
I pass from the disciples to the master. I have never made too much of the famous remark, "Thank God for a man like Adolf Hitler, who will build a bulwark—or whatever it was—against the anti-Christ of Communism." Many of us, all of us said foolish things before the war which we might see fit to retract now. Far more significant is the fact that never once since the war, in spite of challenges, has that remark been denied, retracted or corrected. I do not believe there is on record a single utterance of the master which condemns Hitler or the aggressors or says a really fervent word for this country. I read in the "Oxford Group News" some time ago an article sent to Italy—you will find it in the files—in which this sentence occurred: ''Many people ask what is the attitude of moral rearmament men to the war. The answer is that moral rearmament men go on exactly as before. It never occurred to us to inquire into the origins of the war." Well, I think that a British Youth Movement ought to inquire into the origins


of war. Now at this moment, when these accusations have been made most publicly, my hon. Friend has read out a long and interesting reply from Congressional and Labour leaders of America, whom, naturally, I respect. But I want a word from Dr. Buchman himself before I am satisfied about these things. I would like someone to write to him and say, "Really, Doctor, if you are to continue the leadership of a British youth movement it is almost time you sent us a stirring message about what we are fighting for and what we are fighting against, that you rememBèred that you wear the name of Oxford, that your headquarters are in London, and stood up to that position." I would ask my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow to send a cable to the doctor to-night saying, "Will you cable the House of Commons in these simple words, with no verbiage about God control and all that stuff, ' You were wrong about me, and I was wrong about Hitler. Hitler must be defeated, and Hitlerism must be destroyed'?" Only when I get that sort of message shall I begin to believe that I am wronging a good man. Even then I shall not be wholly satisfied, because I have here in this great book evidence which I maintain is proof of public character, such that we are entitled to consider very seriously even the worst suspicions.
At the time of the old controversy I consulted "Who's Who." This book contains many other well-known names, such as Hitler and Mussolini. But even they with all their faults have not, I think, gone so far as to make false entries in this book. I am not seeking to raise old scores, but this, I think, is a shocking piece of evidence. I happened to look up the entry of Dr. Buchman in 1939, and I read:
In 1921 visited Oxford, where in Christ Church the Oxford Group was founded.
I went hot all over. I thought, not only am I in a jam but I have wronged this innocent man by saying that the connection of his Group with Oxford was small. Here, apparently, was evidence that in 1921 a body called the Oxford Group was deliberately founded at Oxford. Then I had the curiosity to look at previous copies of "Who's Who," and I went back to 1928, where the story began. There the record was quite different. It said:

In 1921, became the centre of a new religious movement called the First Century Christian Fellowship.
That remained until 1931, when the name "Oxford" appeared for the first time. In 1933 it said he:
… became the centre of a new religious movement, the Oxford Group Movement (A First Century Christian Fellowship).
In 1933 the real Oxford Movement centenary was being celebrated, and so in 1934 that dear old First Christian Fellowship disappears for ever. This is all rather difficult to explain, but the point is this. It is one thing to change your name after 13 years from Buchman to, say, Benson, but it is quite another thing to go back and falsify the records so as to make it seem that the name was Benson all the time, especially in the same year when you are by chance going to the British Board of Trade to claim incorporation under the name of Benson.
There is another thing, a smaller thing —though I don't call it smaller because it deals, with Cambridge University. There is written all through the story, under "Education," "Studied at Cambridge University, 1921-22." I took the trouble to ring up the Registrar at Cambridge University, and I find that the facts are that he spent six months at a theological college called Westminster College, which is not part of the University and has nothing to do with it. He might have obtained permission to go to lectures at the University, but on ringing up the Registrar, I found that he did not do any such thing. He has no more right to say that he studied at Cambridge University than anyone who reads a book in a Cambridge pie-shop. These may seem small things, but if Absolute Honesty is so frail in small things, is it likely to stand the test of big ones? In that great book, built by the master's hand, lies for ever the tomb of Absolute Honesty.
On all those counts I now say to the Government that if the hon. Member is kind enough to send that telegram to the doctor and there is not the reply which I demand, within a reasonable time, I shall go to the Prime Minister and ask him to take measures much more severe about this company. I think the Government should say this to the company: "You are, perhaps, on the whole, good, innocent boys, but in this time of war we


cannot afford, to take risks. We may not have all the proof that we want, but there is so much suspicion that we cannot take risks. You boys and girls have to choose between Buchman and Britain, and if you do not, we shall dissolve and prohibit you as a society potentially dangerous to the State."
I believe it would be better still if these boys and girls were to make a generous gesture, a wise gesture, themselves. Before they go to the Colours— and I wish them luck—why do they not gather together in that great room in Hay's Mews, and, while regretting the continued absence of their leader—

Mr. Speaker: I am doing something rather unusual, but I must tell the House that, although as a rule we do not divide on the Motion for the Adjournment, if the House so wishes to divide, it must do so before the hour appointed for the interruption of Business.

Petty-Officer Herbert: Why do not they voluntarily write to the leader and say that he is embarrassing their work? And one thing more. I know that the Christian doctrine of reparation is rightly a very popular one among them. It might be that they might do a classic act of Christian reparation and restore that remnant of the banner which we think they have dishonoured, and in so doing, brought dishonour on themselves. If not, I can say no more than this. I know very well how many people point at me the finger of scorn and say, "King Charles' head," "Bees in the bonnet," or "Bats in the belfry," and all the other epithets which these super-Christians have cast upon me; but the safety of my country, the defence of its institutions, the pursuit of humbug, and, if I may be pardoned for mentioning it, the good great name of Oxford, these are bees and bats and King Charles' heads which I will gaily carry about with me until I die.

Mr. Denman: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but MR. SPEAKER withheld Ms assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Sir Robert Aske: Sir Robert Aske(Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East)  rose—

Hon. Members: Divide.

It being the hour appointed for the interruption of Business, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Major Dugdale.]

Sir R. Aske: The Minister has decided, and has so stated to-day, that the Oxford Group is not a recognised religious body. He has relied in support of that statement upon a judgment of a Court of Chancery, given nearly three years ago, before the Oxford Group became an incorporated body. The case arose as a result of a bequest of certain moneys to the group. In that case the judge decided that the Group was not a legal entity capable of taking a bequest, which in itself was sufficient to determine the case. However, a subsidiary question arose as to whether the money bequeathed was given for charitable purposes, and whether the Oxford Group existed for the advancement of religion. In other words, the question was whether the Group were engaged in religious work. That is the case upon which my right hon. Friend relies. Upon that second point the judge could, of course, determine only upon the evidence before him, and that evidence was of a fragmentary character. He did not decide that the Oxford Group was not a religious body. Upon the evidence which was put before him he was unable to find that the Group was a religious body. Of course, that is a completely different thing.
Since that case the position has been completely revolutionised, because the Group set about putting themselves right in both these respects. In the first place, they became a legal entity by being incorporated as under the name of the Oxford Group. In the second place, they set out in their constitution the real purposes for which the Group existed. These are set out in the Memorandum of Association, which, of course, is, in the case of any incorporated body, the constitution of the body itself. I wish to read to the House the objects for which the Group was established, as they have been formally set out:
The advancement of the Christian religion, and, in particular, by the means and in accordance with the principles of the Oxford Group founded in or about the year 1921 by Frank Buchman.


If the judge in that case had had before him the incorporation, which, of course, he could not have at that time, because the Group was not incorporated, and the objects as set out in the constitution, he would have been obliged to come to a different conclusion on both points. He would have been obliged to hold, first of all, that the Group was a legal entity, and secondly that the purposes for which it was established were the purposes set out in the Memorandum, which are for the advancement of the Christian religion. This consideration is absolutely conclusive and unchallengeable. It is impossible, in the face of these objects declared formally in the constitution, for anyone to say now that the Oxford Group is not a religious body. The Group has no power to do anything outside the objects as stated in this Memorandum. If it set about secular objects it would be doing something ultra vires and illegal. It can only do, by the very terms of the constitution, the things which it is given power to do in its Memorandum, namely, the advancement of the Christian religion. So that on this first point the position the Minister has taken up, which was perfectly sound in every way as related to the period before the incorporation of the Group, is now absolutely untenable since the date when the Group was incorporated with its objects so limited in the words that I have described. I put this as a subsidiary consideration. If the Group is not engaged in religious work, it must be engaged in secular work. Where among the matters that the Group is entitled to undertake can the Minister point to one word which entitles the Group to undertake any matter that should be described as secular? So that the fundamental proposition which the Minister has put forward is entirely unfounded.
But the matter does not really rest there, because this item in the Schedule which is now being considered was a new matter brought forward last April. All these men were reserved under a previous Schedule, and that Schedule, in order to give the right of reservation, was in these words, that the man must be engaged whole-time upon religious work for some recognised body. So that it was impossible up to the date of the new Regulation that any of these men should have been reserved unless the Minister himself was satisfied that they were engaged whole-time upon

religious work. The whole case on this point was conceded by the Minister, and they recognise that in a formal letter written by the Ministry on 27th March, 1941, to the Secretary of the Group, in which they stated that all these men were then reserved on the ground that their duties fell within the terms of the existing definition of lay evangelists. That formally set forth what was the fact, that all these men were engaged whole-time on religious work. They are doing the same work to-day, and if they were entitled to reservation then because they were engaged on religious work, they are entitled to reservation for precisely the same work now. The reason given in this letter was not that the position of these men would be altered because the Oxford Group was not a religious body, but that under the new regulation they would not be persons who were undertaking work of a kind normally performed by a minister of religion, which is an entirely separate point. Therefore, we submit to the Minister that the argument which he has advanced, good as it might have been before the incorporation and the statement of the constitution of the Group, has no force or validity to-day.
That leaves only the other point, as to whether these men are engaged in religious work analogous to that of a regular minister of a religious denomination. With regard to the words "in religious work," I have pointed out that they were in the former Schedule, and it was recognised by the Minister that these men fulfilled that condition. The only other point is whether they are engaged on work analogous to that of a regular minister of a religious denomination. I submit that if any Member were asked to express an opinion on that point with regard to any individual, he would first require to take counsel with some of the leaders of the Churches in order to ascertain what work these men were doing and whether it was analogous to that performed by a regular minister of religion. On that point the leaders of the Free Churches, every one of whom has had long and extensive experience of the work done by ministers of religion and has knowledge of the work being done by the lay evangelists of the Oxford Group, set out a formal statement to the Minister in March, 1941, which contained these statements:


These workers have been engaged in whole-time evangelistic work for a period ante-dating the outbreak of the war. These men have legal responsibilities which have developed as the result of their evangelistic work, and they are at present giving leadership and pastoral care to many hundreds of groups throughout the country and many thousands of individuals. In our view their work is a vital part of the Christian witness of this country. The Oxford Group is a definitely religious movement.
That statement was signed by the acting Moderator of the Free Church Council, the Secretary of the Free Church Council, the President of the Methodist Conference, the Secretary of the London Methodist Mission, the General Secretary of the Baptist Union and by the Rev. Scott Lidgett, of the Bermondsey Settlement. Those are among the most representative leaders of Nonconformist opinion in this country. I submit to the House that it is impossible to get any expert opinion as to whether people are engaged in work analogous to that performed by a minister of religion better than the opinion of those experienced ministers.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Tomlinson):: I would ask the hon. and learned Member to point out where they are showing the analogy. I listened attentively to what he read, but in no particular instance did they say that the work was analogous to that of a minister.

Sir R. Aske: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for asking for this matter to be made quite clear. I will read the statement again:
These men have localised responsibilities which have developed as the result of their evangelistic work.
That is the first point, that they are engaged in evangelistic work, which is surely part of the work of a minister of religion. Secondly, they are at present giving "leadership and pastoral care." Surely pastoral care is the best test that can be devised as to whether the work is analogous to that of a minister of religion. His work is wholly pastoral care, and that is the work that these lay evangelists are doing. My hon. Friend says that these ministers do not go into detail. Neither did the Minister of Labour. He has not pointed out one single respect in which these men are doing work which is not analogous to that of a minister of religion.

They are doing work which the Ministry of Labour, as I have pointed out, formally stated in their letter of March, 1941, was religious work, and if the work is religious work it is work analogous to that done by a minister of religion. Otherwise, we are playing with words. [Interruption.] The Parliamentary Secretary forgets that "whole time" is in this definition. They must be engaged whole time. These men are engaged whole time in work which the Ministry has acknowledged is religious work. Therefore, in my submission, there is no real substance in either of the points which have been raised, either that the group is not a religious body or that these men are not engaged in religious work analogous to that of a minister of religion.

Major Cazalet: I am not a member of the Oxford Group, and I never have been, and some of their habits, and much of their phraseology, have always irritated me to a very great degree, but for many years now I have seen the results of their work. On account of their religious activities many men and women, young and old, have been made better and happier citizens, and that is no mean record. If we, at the end of our time, can say that we have made one individual happier or more fitted for the Kingdom hereafter, we shall have something to our credit. Why have we had a large number of Members present here to-day? Why is there such feeling— construed by opponents of the proposal as propaganda? Because a principle is involved. Questions of religious discrimination and religious freedom have caused a large number of Members to attend today. People in all walks of life throughout the length and breadth of the country have written, protesting against the action of the Minister. Is it not right in these days, when Ministers are given vast powers, that Parliament should be alert to see that these powers are not abused?
Even though the Minister acted correctly under the terms of the Act, it still seems that he has done it in a most unfortunate way. He has made large numbers of genuine, sincere people, who are as patriotic as anybody, believe that he is prejudiced against the religious beliefs which they hold. I know that he made an extremely good-humoured, technically correct and competent speech, but I was not completely satisfied. I still


feel that, from the moment this question arose, the Minister had his prejudices aroused against the Oxford Group. He is not entitled even to give the impression that he has allowed his personal views to influence an administrative decision.
When I have listened to the brilliant speeches made by the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford University (Petty-Officer Herbert), and often when I read and hear the agitation and the strong feelings expressed about the Oxford Group, I am reminded of what was said 2,000 years ago when a new doctrine was being discussed. It was as follows:
If this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought;
But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest, haply, ye be forced even to fight against God.
The Minister, other Members of the House and people in the country outside have other things to which they might devote their energies rather than to trying to bring discredit or unhappiness to people whom I believe to be a wholly sincere, and God-fearing group of people.

Dr. Little: Despite all that has been said to the contrary, I remain unconvinced, and still hold that the Oxford Group is a religious organisation and should be recognised as such by the State. This is no time for needless controversy or for causing friction in our Church or national life. We are engaged in a life and death struggle. We want Church and State to stand together as one, in defence of the rights for which our fathers paid a heavy price. I know there is a good deal of feeling throughout the country, unfortunately, regarding the decision of the Minister of Labour, which he has refused to-day to alter, to my deep regret. I should like to know why there is an exception to be made of the Oxford Group. There can be no doubt in the mind of anyone who faces facts that the Oxford Group is a religious organisation, and that it has a perfect right to have its lay evangelists to carry on its work. I am convinced they are doing as good work as if they were in the Army, the Navy or the Air Force.
The leaders of the Protestant Churches who have spoken have every one declared that the Oxford Group is a religious organisation. Is this opinion of the leaders of our Protestant Churches to be treated with contempt from the Front

Bench here? It is the prerogative of the Church, and I hope the Church will never resign that prerogative—God forbid—to declare what is a religious organisation and what is not a religious organisation. It is not the prerogative of the State. Our forefathers in this land fought and bled and died to maintain the rights and privileges of the Church when the State interfered with those rights and privileges. Under God they won in the fight for religious freedom and tolerance, and from that day away in the dim past to the present hour, so far as I know the Minister of Labour in this House is the first man in the United Kingdom, in war or peace, to usurp the functions of the Church and declare a body of Christians not to be a religious organisation. I state from the Floor of this House that that way danger lies.
We have had too much controversy in the past between Church and State. Why should we resurrect that ghost out of the past, for our hurt and confusion in these days? The State must keep to its own domain, and the State has neither power nor authority to invade that of the Church. Neither statesmen nor Government have any right to say what is or what is not a religious organisation. In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, Who is Head of the Church and Whose kingship as a Christian nation we recognise, I say to-day, as a word of warning, "Hands off, you have strayed into forbidden territory, you are invading the domain where the Church has the. sole right to speak and the sole right to assert authority." For me the decision of the Minister of Labour and those behind him goes far beyond the calling-up of the remaining 11 lay evangelists of the Oxford Group, as it strikes at the very root of the religious freedom for which we as a land have been famous over the world, that freedom which enables everyone to think, believe, and worship according to his own conscientious convictions. When the Minister of Labour was appointed to the important post he holds in the Government, he was not appointed to be religious dictator of the country. Even yet, in spite of all he has said on the Front Bench to-day, I make a strong appeal to him to recognise that and, acknowledging candidly his mistake, to set himself to make amends to the Oxford Group for his error of judgment, for it is a very decided error of judgment.
I have no connection with the Oxford Group. They have their way of working, and I have my way, but I believe we are both working for the Kingdom of God, and, as St. Paul said, if Christ were preached, he would not quarrel with those who did not go along his lines. I believe the Oxford Group are doing a good work. It may not be along my lines, but they are doing it for the Kingdom of God. I have no connection with the Group, but I have seen the lives and actions of many of its adherents, and in this land we could do with more of the same stamp—many more. This nation requires spiritual and moral rearmament even more, I would say, than material rearmament, and the

Oxford Group is working toward that end. France had material rearmament in abundance, but France lacked spiritual and moral rearmament, with the result we all know: France fell at the first onslaught of the enemy. The Oxford Group has done much for the spiritual and moral rearmament of our nation, and. I say that as one who has no connection with it. I hope that even yet the 11 lay evangelists of the Group will be allowed to continue their good work in the interests of the State and the Kingdom of God.

It being the hour appointed for the Adjournment of the House, MR. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.